Texts

Albert van der Heide³

We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

319 Accesses

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 119.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 159.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 159.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
The name circulates in many versions. H. Malter, Saadia Gaon, His Life and Works (Philadelphia 1921). Saadia Anniversary Volume (New York 1943). L. Finkelstein (ed.), Rab Saadia Gaon: Studies in his Honour (1944). E.I.J Rosenthal (ed.), Saadya Studies (Manchester 1943). Recent bibliography in “Saadiah”, EJ2, 17, 606–614; R. Brody, “The Geonim of Babylonia as Biblical Exegetes” in: HBOT I/2, 74–88 and Idem, The Geonim of Babylonia and the Shaping of Medieval Jewish Culture (New Haven and London, rev. ed. 2013), 235–332: Part III: “Se‘adyah Gaon and After”, 300–315 on his biblical exegesis.
2.
The Kitāb (mukhtār fī) al-Amānāt wa-al-I‘tiqādāt (ed. S. Landauer, 1880) was translated into Hebrew as Sefer ha-Emunot we-ha-De‘ot by Judah Ibn Tibbon in 1186 and became generally known by that name; for editions see our Bibliography. S. Rosenblatt published an English translation from the Arabic: The Book of Beliefs and Opinions (New Haven and London 1948; repr. 1976).
3.
S.L. Skoss, Saadia Gaon, the earliest Hebrew Grammarian (Philadelphia 1955). A. Dotan (ed.), Or rishon be-ḥokhmat ha-lashon (The Dawn of Hebrew Linguistics), 2 vols. (Jerusalem 1997).
4.
M. Zulay, Ha-Askola ha-Payṭanit shel Rav Sa’adya Gaon (Jerusalem 1964).
5.
M. Polliack, The Karaite Tradition of Arabic Bible Translations of the Pentateuch (Leiden 1997). Brody, Geonim…, 300–315 on Saadya’s biblical exegesis. R. C. Steiner, A Biblical Translation in the Making: The Evolution and Impact of Saadia Gaon’s Tafsīr (Harvard 2011). S. H. Griffith, The Bible in Arabic: The Scriptures of the ‘People of the Book’ in the Language of Islam (Princeton 2013), esp. 174–195 (Ch. V): “Jewish Translations of the Bible into Arabic”.
6.
By calling his translation Tafsīr basīṭ naṣṣ al-Tawrā – ‘the simple commentary of the text of the Torah’ (Derenbourg, 4); cp. Brody, HBOT I/2, 78; Geonim…, 303.
7.
Polliack, xvi, 77–90; in Part Two Polliack offers numerous instances of Saadya’s interpretative translations (as opposed to those of the Karaites). M. Zucker, ‘Al Targum RaSaG la-Tora (1959) extensively analysed Saadya’s method. Y. Qafiḥ, Perushe Rabbenu Sa‘adya ‘al ha-Tora (1963) translated the interpretative elements of the Tafsīr into Hebrew. A. Rippin, “Sa‘adya Gaon and Genesis 22”, 34–36 discusses the implications of Arabic hermeneutical terminology. Since the discovery of new manuscripts H. Derenbourg’s editions of Saadya’s Arabic translations are generally considered less adequate.
8.
M. Zucker (ed.), Perushe Rav Sa‛adya Ga’on li-Bereshit (New York 1984).
9.
The Arabic text on the remainder of Genesis (Wa-Yeṣe – Wa-Yeḥi) and fragments of Numeri and Deuteronomy have been edited and translated into Hebrew by A. Greenberg (1978).
10.
A. Rippin, “Sa‘adya Gaon and Genesis 22: Aspects of Jewish-Muslim Interaction and Polemic”, 36–39 carefully analysed the implications of Saadya’s choices, which he attributes mainly to intercultural dynamics. Qafiḥ, Perushe, 30 gives the Hebrew equivalents, not in complete agreement with Rippin. Chumash Torat Chaim gives Hebrew translations of Saadya’s interpretational renderings on a regular basis. Torat Chaim and Qafiḥ indicate that Saadya omits the article of “the altar” in vs. 9, but the Derenbourg edition has al-maḏbaḥ; for the relevance of this detail see *21*.
11.
E.g. in Gen. 22, 1; Ex. 16, 4; 17, 7; 20, 17/20; Dt. 8, 2; 13, 4; 33, 8: all cases of God trying man. For a detailed analysis see A. van der Heide, “Banner, miracle, trial?”, 97–98 and Appendix IV below.
12.
Note that in the Tafsīr (but not in the commentary) Saadya also opted for Arabic versions of the Hebrew proper names, e.g. Ibrahīm, Isḥaq, and Elohim as well as YHWH are both rendered with the Arabic Allāh.
13.
Abraham Maimuni remarks at the end of his discussion of this point: ‘R. Saadya interpreted this as the appearance of God’s Presence. But I wrote down what I understood.’ See below Sect. 2.13.2. And see the note in Derenbourg, a.l.
14.
See Appendix V.
15.
For the relation of Saadya’s opinion of the trial to divine foreknowledge as expressed in Beliefs and Opinions (IV, 34), a topic not explicitly mentioned here, see S. Feldman “The Binding of Isaac …” in: T. Rudavsky (ed.), Divine Omniscience and Omnipotence, 106–109.
16.
Men may also try God (cp. Ex. 17, 2.7; Num. 14, 22; etc.), and here too Saadya knows how to differentiate between two ways of ‘trying’. The contradiction between Dt. 6, 16 (“You should not try (lo tenassu) the Lord your God”) and Mal. 3, 10 (“And try Me (beḥanuni) now herewith”) is Saadya’s favorite example of apparent internal contradictions in Scripture where reason has to decide on their true meaning. These verses prove that ‘there are two different modes of trying God … (The one is) to try His omnipotence whether He is able or unable to do a certain thing; … which is prohibited. The other is the test to which the servant of God subjects himself in order to find out whether or not he occupies a position of distinction and esteem with his Master; … such testing is permitted’ (Emunot we-De‘ot VII, 2 in the alternative version, Beliefs, 416 (Qafiḥ, 219–220); see also there 266 (Landauer, 212–213), and the Petiḥah to the Genesis commentary (Zucker, 1984, 18 (Arabic), 191–192 (Hebrew)). Apparently Saadya considered the difference between nissa and baḥan insignificant.
17.
In passing Saadya takes the opportunity to formulate an interpretation of the minor detail that God “loathes the wicked one who loves violence” (Ps. 11, 5): Why is the sinner here given two designations: wicked and lover of violence? The answer is that God will not try the sinner when he is wrong in deed, nor when he is wrong in thought. So it says “the wicked”: in deed, “and him who loves violence”: in thought. This idea apparently did not enter the mainstream of Jewish exegesis. Note, however, that Midrash Tehillim (Buber, fol. 50a) remarks in typically midrashic fashion: ‘“The wicked” that is Ishmael, “and him who loves violence” that is Esau.’
18.
Sarah’s consent and collaboration is a topic in many Midrashim; see above Sect. 1.2.3.12. Saadya also noted that the oft-quoted phrase from Gen. 21, 12 (“In Isaac offspring will be named for you”) in fact depends on Sarah’s instruction (“Whatever Sarah tells you, do as she says”).
19.
More on this in A. van der Heide, “Banner, miracle, trial…”, 97–98. Note that the sound association with naśa’ ‘to lift, to elevate’ (as materialized by a.o. the spelling nesa in Ps. 4, 7) also helps to preserve this (mis)understanding.
20.
Amānāt, Landauer, 172/Qafiḥ, 176; Beliefs, 213.
21.
E.g. Dt. 8, 2; 13, 4; Van der Heide, “Banner, miracle, trial”, 98; for similar cases Zucker (1959), 263–264. The change from yada‛ti to hoda‛ti or yidda‛ti was, however, already stated, or implied, in a number of Midrashim, e.g.: yidda‛tani, le-hodia‛ le-ummot ha-‛olam; *29*.
22.
Needless to say that traditionally the Aqedah itself is counted as the tenth trial; Appendix I.
23.
A. Rippin, “Sa‘adya Gaon and Genesis 22: Aspects of Jewish-Muslim Interaction and Polemic” in: Studies in Islamic and Judaic Traditions (1986), 40–42; C. Adang, Muslim Writers on Judaism …, 192–222 (Ch. 6: “The abrogation of the Mosaic Law”), esp. on Saadya 198–202 and literature quoted there. S.H. Griffith, The Bible in Arabic, 170–174. Saadya discussed this topic in his Emunot we-De‘ot III, 79 (Amānāt, Landauer, 128–140/Qafiḥ, 131–143; Beliefs, 157–173).
24.
Amānāt, Landauer, 135–140/Qafiḥ, 139–143; Beliefs, 167–173.
25.
Beliefs, 169; Rippin, 40–42 competently embeds Saadya’s argumentation within the discussion on abrogation in Muslim circles, but makes no mention of the Genesis commentary.
26.
According to the edition and translation of M. Zucker (1984), 139–142 (Arabic), 398–402 (modern Hebrew translation). The English translation by M. Linetsky, Rabbi Saadiah Gaon’s Commentary on the Book of Creation (2002) was not available to us.
27.
In the original this is the Arabic translation of the Psalm quotation.
28.
Treatise IV of Emunot we-De‘ot, headed: ‘Concerning obedience and rebellion and predestination and (divine) jusitice’ (Beliefs, 180).
29.
Ps. 11, 5 reads in literal translation: “The Lord tests the righteous, but His soul despises a wicked one, and him who loves violence.”
30.
This reference to Ishmael may have some polemical intent (Brody, HBOT I/2, 85), but note that the Midrashim frequently mention him as well.
31.
The Arabic syrny (as Zucker’s Hebrew yr’ny) is difficult to understand.
32.
The last sentence of this portion is incomplete in the original.
33.
See U. Simon, “Abraham ibn Ezra” in: HBOT I/2, 377–387 for a recent survey of his exegetical work; with bibliography. M.Z. Cohen, Three Approaches to Biblical Metaphor (2003), with detailed subject index.
34.
The ‘Longer Version’ (also called Shiṭa Aḥeret) is extant only of Exodus and of Genesis 1–12, 17. The ‘Shorter Version’ is the usual one (except for Exodus) and printed in many editions.
35.
For a good characterization with examples see Simon in HBOT II/2. For a discussion and translation of the Introduction: I. Lancaster, Deconstructing the Bible: Abraham ibn Ezra’s Introduction to the Torah (London [etc.] 2003).
36.
See the bibliographies of M. Friedlaender, Ibn Ezra Literature (1877), 212–251 and N. Ben Menaḥem, ‘Inyene Ibn ‘Ezra (1978), 149–181. E. Gutwirth, “Fourteenth Century Supercommentaries…” (Madrid 1990), 147–154. U. Simon, “Interpreting the Interpreter: Supercommentaries on Ibn Ezra’s Commentaries” (Cambridge, MA [etc.], 1993), 86–121; a Hebrew and enlarged version in Sarah Kamin Memorial Volume (Jerusalem 1994), 367–411, including a list of 58 entries.
37.
See below Sect. 2.6.3.
38.
The name refers to the twelve last verses of Deuteronomy (34, 1–12) that describe the death of Moses. Ibn Ezra includes the beginning of the book, as well as Dt. 31, 22, Gen. 12, 6, and Dt. 3, 1 into the category of ‘the Twelve’, and discusses the ‘mystery’ very cautiously. On the topic itself see Simon, HBOT II/2, 382, esp. for the literature, and e.g. the notes in Weiser’s edition.
39.
J. Cohen, Haguto ha-filosofit shel R. Avraham Ibn-‘Ezra’ (Rishon le-Zion 1996), 264–265 formulated a plausible attempt.
40.
Weiser, vol. II, 216: kelal; Miqra’ot Gedolot, Haketer (Exodus II, 159): kol. The remark is part of the treatise on the ‘venerable Name that is not pronounced’. The translation in Strickman/Silver, Exodus (1996), 696–7 is a bit different but retains the difficulty that seems to make the statement slightly off the mark: ‘…for only God knows the individuals and their parts in an all compassing manner.’ It is tempting to translate: ‘For He knows the individuals…. in a general way only.’
41.
We will see that David Kimḥi (below Sect. 2.6.2.) introduced the same idea in similar terms, but in a less fitting context.
42.
But see the reservation expressed in note 40.
43.
Yesod Mora X, 2 (Cohen, 2002, 168; Strickman, 1995, 142, and the explication there (note 24): ‘According to I.E. God’s knowledge extends only to the general and the eternal. Ibn Ezra believes that God knows the particular only to the extent that it is involved in the general and permanent.’ The immediate context here is human love of God (“You shall love the Lord, your God…”; Dt. 6, 5), which does bestow man with eternal life and immortality of the soul.
44.
Because of the sensitivity of this idea (for orthodoxy) Strickman/Silver on Gen. 18, 21 (197, note 44) consider the possibility of an interpolation here, but the reference in our verse testifies against this.
45.
Ibn Ezra’s use of the term ha-kol is complex and elusive; see J Cohen, Haguto ha-filosofit …, 149–160, esp. 157: ‘“The All” is a symbolic term that Ibn Ezra uses to indicate the spiritual force held to be the active foundation within the whole of reality’; p. 159: ‘… we may use this name also to indicate the Lord Himself because He is the foundation that “maintains” and “gives life” to everything.’ E. R. Wolfson, “God, the Demiurge and the Intellect: On the Usage of the Word ‘kol’ in Abraham Ibn Ezra” in: Revue des études juives 149 (1990), 77–111 and H. Kreisel, “On the term ‘kol’ in Abraham Ibn Ezra: A Reappraisal” in: Revue des études juives 153 (1994), 29–66.
46.
For the measure and mode of human freedom vis-à-vis God’s providence, one of the established challenges of medieval philosophy, see e.g. T. Rudavsky (ed.), Divine Omniscience and Omnipotence in Medieval Philosophy: Islamic, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives (Dordrecht, etc. 1984).
47.
D. Herzog (ed.), Sefer Ṣofnat Pa‛neaḥ I, 111; and cp. his remarks on Exodus 33 as a whole in I, 302–303, and passim. A philosopher like Gersonides explicitly invokes the providentia specialis in his explanation of “I have known you by name” (Ex. 33, 12, Be’ur ha-Millot): ‘That is: special knowledge; for the sake of this knowledge the providentia specialis (hashgaḥa peraṭit) cleaves unto him, for ‘knowledge’ is ‘providence’. See also the discussion below in Sect. 2.12.2.1.
48.
I. Husik, A History of Medieval Jewish Philosophy (1916), 189, 193 (Italics ours). It is the position described by Isaac Arama below Sect. 2.14.3{4}.
49.
See e.g. M. Friedlaender, Ibn Ezra Literature (1877), 23. In the introduction to the Ten Commandments (Short Commentary Exodus 20) Ibn Ezra scolds ‘the sages of India, who say that the Lord does not know the details’; on Ps. 73, 11 Ibn Ezra identifies the “sinners” of vs. 12 with the ones who say “How should God know?”; on Ps. 94, 10 he makes much of God’s unlimited knowledge of the thoughts of human beings. J. Cohen, Haguto ha-filosofit …, 256–266 enumerates 11 conflicting statements on God’s knowledge of universals and particulars made by Ibn Ezra and makes a plausible attempt at harmonization.
50.
J. Cohen, 285–286 here adds Ibn Ezra’s remarks on Ex. 15, 25 and Dt. 13, 4.
51.
See above Sect. 2.1.2; 2.1.4 vs.12. Apart from occasional qualifications Ibn Ezra had great respect for Saadya’s biblical exegesis; see e.g. Y. Avishur, “The Attitude of R. Avraham Ibn Ezra …” (1990).
52.
Below Sect. 2.6.2.
53.
See note 58 below.
54.
Bonfils I, 111: ‘Initially all first born were priests, but after a year the Lord chose the tribe of the Levites to serve before Him.’ Mishna Zevaḥim XIV, 4: ‘Before the tabernacle was set up, the high places were permitted and the altar service was fulfilled by the first born. But after the tabernacle was set up, the high places were forbidden and the priests performed the altar service.’ Cp. Ex. 13, 2; 24, 5; Num. 3, 40–45.
55.
Text in A. Weiser (1976); also, on the basis of manuscripts, in Miqra’ot Gedolot, Haketer (see Bereshit I, 1997, 12–13). A German translation in Bacher (1894), 299–300; English in Strickman/Silver (1988).
56.
I.e. some propose to read here naśa’ – ‘to lift up, to elevate’, instead of nissa; cp. *2b*.
57.
Translated according to Bonfils’ commentary, who adds:

Their (the philosophers’) opinion on this matter is that God knows all things that are coming into being before they are. But this knowledge is so that He knows their potentialities (only); that is the knowledge of the possible, as if to say: It is possible that it will be so and it is possible that it will not be so, for (“The Lord is an all knowing God,) by Him actions are measured” (I Sam. 2, 3). And afterwards, when the matter has turned from potentiality into actuality, then the knowledge becomes knowledge of the actual present.

Strickman/Silver translate without the (implied) contradiction: ‘The latter (i.e. ‘knowledge of what is presently in existence’) is the meaning of “God did prove” and “For now I know”.’
58.
The Rechabites had vowed abstinence and would certainly not drink wine. Bonfils: ‘The Lord said so to Jeremiah concerning the Rechabites, so the meaning is: Act as if (her’a) you will make them drink wine.’ Ibn Ezra possibly derived this reference from Jonah ibn Janaḥ; see the quotations below in Sect. 2.14.2.4 at note 811.
59.
Ibn Ezra on Gen. 18, 21: ‘According to me the meaning here is: I will see whether they have all acted according to this evil. For the truth is that He who knows all, knows every detail in a general manner (‘al derekh kol) and not in detail (‘al derekh heleq).’ See above note 40.
60.
See the discussion above.
61.
Because in vs. 6 it is laid on Isaac’s shoulders.
62.
In Sefer Ṣaḥot (Del Valle, 207; Lipmann, 21b) we find the following on “And Abraham looked up”: ‘Many cases (of initial waw – ‘and’) have to be explained as Arabic fa-, as in “And Abraham looked up”, following: “on the third day”. It is as if it said: On the third day Abraham looked up.’ So according to Ibn Ezra this we-/wa- can simply be omitted. For more references to Arabic fa- (pe rafe bi-leshon Yishma‘el) see also Ibn Ezra on Gen. 1, 2; 2, 6; 20, 16; 36, 24; Ex. 9, 12; 18, 23; Is. 28, 18; Zech. 14, 17; Ps. 69, 21. It seems that before him Ibn Janaḥ (with a string of different examples; Riqma, ed. Wilensky, 63–64) referred to another manifestation of the ‘pleonastic waw’, mostly to be paraphrased by az (‘then’) + future tense. See also below, Kimḥi 2.6.2 note 417.
63.
On Gen. 27, 19 (cp. 20, 12) Ibn Ezra states that, unlike the prophet who reveals God’s commandments, a prophet who merely foretells the future is occasionally allowed to tell a lie (le-khazzev).
64.
See Appendix III.
65.
Litt.: ‘If the ḥet of ne’eḥaz – ‘caught’ had been vocalized with a qameṣ (instead of pataḥ), …’ A participle combined with the verb haya indicates a continuous action; here, with pataḥ, it is the perfect tense denoting a single action in the past.
66.
E.g. Onkelos and Rashi take the word as an adverb ‘afterwards’, but Ibn Ezra reads it as the conjunction aḥare asher.
67.
Mukhrat – ‘cut off’, the opposite of samukh/nismakh (for e.g. absolute and construct state of nouns).
68.
On the ‘Mystery of the Twelve’ see above Sect. 2.2.2.
69.
Implicitly rejecting the various midrashic solutions; cp. *31*.
70.
So Miqra’ot Gedolot, Haketer and Bonfils; in Weiser and Strickman/Silver the reference to Ex. is lacking. Ibn Ezra on Ex. 10, 6 (Short Recension): ‘When Pharaoh was silenced and Moses turned to leave, Aaron was also with him. But since he (Moses) was the key person (‘iqqar) the text does not mention Aaron, just like in “And Abraham returned to his servants.” The proof is in the verse “And Moses was brought back with Aaron” (Ex. 10, 8).’
71.
For Rashi and his exegesis we mention here: S. Kamin, Rash”i. (Jerusalem 1986). A. Grossman, Ḥakhme Ṣarfat, 121–253; on his biblical exegesis: 182–215. Idem, HBOT I/2 (2000), 332–346 and his monograph Emunot we-de‘ot be-‘olamo shel Rashi (Jerusalem 2006); Rashi (Oxford/Portland, Oregon 2012). See also the long Introduction in M.I. Gruber (ed.), Rashi’s Commentary on Psalms (Leiden 2004).
72.
To maintain awareness of the gap between the text and its author it would, perhaps, be sensible to designate the text corpus that bears the name of the scholar R. Solomon from Troyes, as ‘Rashi’ rather than Rashi; see e.g. my proposal in Zutot 1 (2001), 77–78. For the retrieval of a still better text than the one compiled by Abraham Berliner in 1866 and 1905 E. Touitou suggested a new critical approach (“‛Al gilgule ha- nosaḥ shel perush Rashi la-Tora” in: Tarbiz 56 (1986-’87), 211–242), but A. Grossman[n], “Haggahot R. Shema‘ya we- nosaḥ perush Rashi ‘al ha-Tora” in: Tarbiz 60 (1990-‘91), 67–98 preferred a decisive role for one manuscript (MS Leipzig 1). In the followings years a controversy ensued (Touitou: Tarbiz 61, 85–115; 62, 297–303; Grossmann: 61, 305–315; 62, 621–624); for a summary of the unresolved state of research see Grossman in Ḥakhme Ṣarfat, 184–193; HBOT I/2 (2000), 333–334. A new effort was made by Miqra’ot Gedolot, Haketer; see there on the additions in Rashi in general the General Introduction in vol. I: Josha – Judges (Ramat Gan 1992), 32*-42*, 84*-85*, and next note.
73.
Ch.B. Chavel (ed.), Perushe Rashi ‘al ha-Tora (Jerusalem 1982) can be considered one of the last (and well furnished) ‘textus receptus’ editions. Miqra’ot Gedolot, Haketer’s Rashi text on Genesis (Ramat Gan, I, 1997; II, 1999) is based on 5 manuscripts (there, Haqdama, 12). Rashi ha-Shalem gives the text of the three earliest Rashi editions (Rome 1470; Reggio di Calabria 1475; Guadalajara 1476); Genesis 22 on pp. 368–371.
74.
E. Touitou, “‛Al gilgule ha-nosaḥ …” Tarbiz 56, 229–235 analysed Rashi’s commentary for the parashah Wa-Yera and identified various passages in the ‘textus receptus’ as later additions absent in important manuscripts; see e.g. below notes 81, 97, 105, and 126. Haketer indicated only two such passages for Gen. 22; see below notes 120 and 124.
75.
Rashi’s dependence upon the classical sources is so complete that in cases where this is not immediately apparent, the supercommentator Elijah Mizraḥi does not hesitate to mention this. Examples of this are the wording of the quotations from GenR 55, 7 and 39, 9 (*6c*, *10b*), and the remark on Abraham’s cleaving of the wood—actually an explanation of the Targum on that passage; see below notes 76 and 81. See also Rashi ha-Shalem, vol. I (1986) for more, and sometimes other, references. According to Florsheim, Rashi on the Talmud I, 45–46 Rashi’s voluminous commentary on the Babylonian Talmud contains two items dealing with details from our chapter, both of a lexicographical nature; see below notes 85 and 123.
76.
See e.g. Michael A. Signer, “Rashi’s Reading of the Akedah”, Journal of the Society for Textual Reasoning 2, 1 (June 2003); Kamin, Rashi, 179–180 on vs. 12; 231–247 on vs. 1.
77.
Above Sect. 1.2.3.4: Satan’s involvement.
78.
Above Sect. 1.2.3.9: Primordial.
79.
See the bibliographies in Freimann, Shapira, and Toledano.
80.
See the Bibliography: Mizraḥi, Divre David, Naḥmanides. The latter, in the prologue to his own commentary, phrased his attitude towards Rashi as follows: ‘I will place as an illumination before me … the commentaries of our rabbi Solomon … And with them we will have discussions, investigations and examinations’ (Chavel (1971-’76), I, 5; (1959), I, [20]).
81.
Note that Touitou in Tarbiz 56, 235 considered this passage an addition because it is absent in some of the manuscripts.
82.
It is clear from cases like this that there is more to the inclusion of le‘azim than mere lexical information; see e.g. M. Banitt, Rashi, Interpreter of the Biblical Letter (1985) and below Sect. 2.4.2.2 note 142.
83.
See note 97 below.
84.
‘Another point: This knife is called here ma’akhelet because Israel will eat (okhelin), enjoy the reward for what it did.’ See Rashbam Sect. 2.4.2.4. In the combination of two interpretations (one peshaṭ the other derash), joined by davar aḥer, the latter is suspect of being a later addition, less specific and theologically biased.
85.
A similar remark occurs in the late Midrash Bereshit Rabbati (ed. Albeck), 141. Rashi’ on Gen. 30, 39: ‘“Striped”: they (the animals) were different at the spot where they were bound: the ankles of hands and feet (i.e. fore and hind leg).’ In support of the opinion that ‛aqad denotes the binding of hands and feet together Rashi’s description in his comment on Shabb. 54a is even more vivid: ‘“He bound” (wa-ya‛aqod): He tied his hands and his legs behind him and knotted hand and foot together so that his throat was exposed (nifshaṭ).’
86.
A variant reading adds: ‘in order to stop it.’ And see note 123 below.
87.
Elsewhere too Rashi consistently understands the devarim in this typical Biblical phrase to be ‘words’; see Kamin, Rashi, 231–247; our verse esp. 236–239.
88.
It is obvious that the opening chapter of the book of Job inspired this Midrash.
89.
It should be noted that the Midrash offers yet a third interpretation for the ‘words’ that preceded the story, namely the words of Abraham’s pondering (cp. *1b*), but Rashi apparently saw no use for this one here. He does so however in vs. 20.
90.
See below Rashbam Sect. 2.4.1.2.
91.
Note that his source in Sanh. 89b also says in both cases: ‘Straight away (mi-yad): “God tried Abraham”.’ *1e*.
92.
Below Sect. 2.5.2.1.
93.
On this detail the commentator Elijah Mizraḥi offers a useful annotation: ‘Now is an expression of request.’ Rashi doesn’t mean to say that all occurrences of na denote a request, for we find many places where na is not an expression of request. But this is his intention: This na here can only be meant as a request; what else could it be?
94.
Note here the typically midrashic technique of constructing a dialogue out of a single sentence.
95.
Similar Bekhor Shor Sect. 2.4.3.3.
96.
Num. 22, 22 offers here an interesting parallel: “(Balaam) was riding on his she-ass and his two servants were with him.” Rashi a.l.: ‘From this (we know) that an important man who goes out on a journey should take two persons with him to serve him so that they in their turn can serve each other.’ Rashi depends here on the Tanḥuma (Balaq 8; fol. 85a): ‘“His two servants were with him.” That is the proper conduct (derekh ereṣ). An important man who goes out on a journey needs two (persons) to serve him so that they in their turn can serve each other.’ But the supercommentary Divre David does not agree because what Rashi says is not compatible with the notion that ‘Love disrupts the rule’: ‘For Balaam, who was in the company of the princes of Moab and who behaved proudly and would never deign to serve his servant, for him the reason that the circumstances could force him to serve his companion was a valid one. But there is no prohibition to break this rule. Abraham, however, was humble and meek and, if he had to, was not too proud to serve one of his servants.... The proof is that he himself did all that could have been done by his servants. He needed the two servants for his safety only.’ So Divre David lays even more stress on Abraham’s good qualities. See also below Ḥazzequni Sect. 2.5.3.7vs.3.
97.
Touitou in Tarbiz 56, 235 considers this Midrash a later addition, but Grossmann in Tarbiz 60, 97 reports that it is extant in the important manuscript Leipzig 1.
98.
See below Bekhor Shor Sect. 2.4.2.4, and Kimḥi’s full explanation of the alternatives Sect. 2.6.3.
99.
The sources combine ‘affection and encouragement’ *24a*, or speak of ‘haste and urgency’*24b*, as e.g Ḥazzequni and others do.
100.
And, according to rabbinic tradition, a great past as well; cp. the history of “the altar” as depicted in *21*.
101.
Note that Targum Onkelos has a minor variant here. Some read a construct: ara‘ pulḥana – ‘the land of worship’ (e.g. Aberbach/Grossfeld; Haketer), others an absolute state: ar‘ā pulḥana – ‘the land Worship’ (Miqra’ot Gedolot, Warsaw, our text of Naḥmanides; see Sect. 2.8.2.1 note 474).
102.
See the great attention spent on this detail by Naḥmanides and the authors of the Be’ur; below Sects. 2.8.2.1 and 2.16.3. Note also the very different interpretation of Rashbam (and Ḥazzequni): Amoriah.
103.
It is not implausible that Onkelos’ choice for a word derived from the root plḥ – ‘to fear, to worship’ is based on the assumption that the name Moriah is somehow related to yr’ – ‘to fear’ (as some Midrashim do; *7*).
104.
Cp. the disputed passage in vs. 12 discussed below, and note the echo of this semantic ingenuity in Bekhor Shor Sect. 2.4.3.3vs.12.
105.
Chavel gives it in brackets; Touitou in Tarbiz 56, 235 also considers it a later addition; Haketer retained it. The midrashic idea that Abraham started an argument with God (cp. *9*) is also present in Bekhor Shor Sect. 2.4.3.3 vs. 1 but was not taken up by other representatives of the school of Rashi and Tosafists.
106.
But close to TanḥB Wa-Yera 46 *29*, where e.g. Satan is lacking.
107.
Kamin, Rashi, 179–180, 238. Saadya (above Sects. 2.1.2 and 2.1.3) made the shift to ‘I made known’ explicitly and Maimonides did so candidly; below Sect. 2.7.3 note 444.
108.
Targum Onkelos of vs. 14: ‘Abraham worshipped and prayed there in that place. He said: (Later) generations will worship the Lord here. Therefore it will be said: On this day, on this mountain Abraham worshipped the Lord.’ Targum Ps.-Jonathan has: ‘Abraham praised and prayed there in that place and said: … ’ (follows Abraham’s plea for forgiveness and mercy on later generations). Rashi mentions the Targum here, as he did in vs. 2, in order to stress the future of Moriah as a place of worship. The notion of ‘choice’ appears only in vs. 8, in a different context, where Targ. Ps.-Jonathan renders “God will see” by: ‘He will choose.’
109.
See above Sect. 1.2.3.10: Resurrection; 2.1.4.
110.
The mention of Abraham’s 26 year stay at Hebron refers to Rashi’s comment on Gen. 21, 34, translated in Appendix III.
111.
If aḥare indeed denotes ‘after a lapse of time’, *1e* later commentators had difficulty to understand Rashi correctly; see below Sect. 2.5.2.1.
112.
Chavel (1982), 80–83; Miqra’ot Gedolot, Haketer I, 193–198.
113.
Onkelos reads either: la-ara‘ pulḥana – ‘the land of worship’ or: le-ar‘ā pulḥana – ‘the land Worship’; see above note 101.
114.
Var.: ‘it was not in His mind (be-da‘to).’
115.
Chavel: le-ha‘alehu[!]; Haketer: ya‘alehu.
116.
Var.: ‘the reason of the matter is to receive reward for each separate word.’ cp. *6c*
117.
See above at note 84.
118.
Be-lev shawe, var.: be-lev shalem.
119.
See above note 85.
120.
Suspected addition.
121.
In slightly questionable Aramaic: asseqteh aḥeteh (and see the many variants in GenR 56, 8 (604)). For the passage as such see above at note 105.
122.
Var.: ‘to God’s Justice (middat ha-din).’
123.
Chavel: “ba-sevakh”: ilan; Haketer: “ba-sevakh”: bi-sevakh ilan; the translation ‘of a tree’ (a construct), though slightly questionable, is in keeping with Rashi’s view that the root s-b-k denotes the tangle of shoots and branches within a tree or shrub and not the tree itself; in Is. 9, 17; 10, 34 he explains the expression sivkhe ha-ya‛ar by ‘anafim – ‘branches’; in Sota 43b the expression ‘R. Abbahu said: A young (shoot) that sprouted (sibbekha) on an old one’ is commented by Rashi as follows: ‘That sprouted’ is derived from “Caught in the thicket (sevakh)”, for it made a shoot on an old (branch).
124.
Haketer includes here the addition by Joseph Kara; below Sect. 2.4.3.1.
125.
Chavel: peshuṭo ke-targumo; Haketer: peshuṭo we-targumo…. Onkelos reads here: ‘Before the Lord (he said): Here the generations will worship.’
126.
On Gen. 21, 34. Touitou, “‛Al gilgule ha-nosaḥ…,” Tarbiz 56, 235 considers the comments on vss. 17 and 19 later additions; and see above note 110.
127.
On Kara see A. Grossman in HBOT I/2, 346–358 and Ḥakhme Ṣarfat, 254–346 (= Chapter V). M. M. Ahrend, Le Commentaire sur Job (Hildesheim 1978), 177–184 gives a detailed bibliography; for editions see also Gellis I, 1920. Kara’s older nephew Menaḥem ben Ḥelbo left no traces of a commentary on the Pentateuch; see HBOT I/2, 331–332.
128.
A. Berliner, Pletath Soferim (1872), with earlier work by A. Geiger; J. Gellis, Tosafot ha-Shalem (the collection of Tosafist material in the format of M.M. Kasher’s well-known and voluminous Tora Shlema; see 5.1.19) derived his Kara material from Gad, Ḥamisha Me’orot Gedolim, a doubtful source (according to Ahrend, Job, 180).
129.
For these fragments from the ‘Italian Genizah’ see: Grossman, Ḥakhme Ṣarfat, 290–302; Idem, “Mi-‘Genizat Iṭaliya’” in: Pe‘amim 52 (1992), 16–36; Idem, “Genuze Iṭaliya…” in: Sarah Kamin Memorial Volume (Jerusalem 1994), 335–348.
130.
A. Grossman in HBOT I/2, 358–363. For other works by Rashbam, original, fragmentary, or doubtful, see ibid., 358–359 and S. Japhet, R.B. Salters (eds., tr.), The Commentary of R. Samuel ben Meir Rashbam on Qohelet (Jerusalem/Leiden 1985), 14–18, 19–33. H. Liss, Creating Fictional Worlds (Leiden/Boston 2011) understands Rashbam’s Pentateuch commentary as an endeavour, in the spirit of his time, to read the Torah as literature. And see E. Touitou’s collected essays on Rashbam Ha-peshaṭot ha-mitḥadshim be-khol yom (Ramat Gan 2003).
131.
See below Be’ur Sect. 2.16.1 note 1014. On the manuscript and its edition also Miqra’ot Gedolot, Haketer, Bereshit I (Ramat Gan 1997), 12.
132.
D. Rosin (ed.), Perush ha-Tora asher katav Rashba”m … (Breslau 1881); some recent criticism in I. Kislev, “Perush ha-Ḥizzequni ke-‘ed nosaḥ le-ferush Rashba”m la-Tora” (2007), 173–193; a new edition M. (I.) Lockshin (ed.), Perush ha-Tora le-Rabbenu Shemu’el ben Me’ir, 2 vols. (Jerusalem 2009); a translation in M.I. Lockshin, Rabbi Samuel ben Meir’s Commentary on Genesis (1990), etc.
133.
Rosin (1881), 113.
134.
Rosin (1881), 49. Melammed, Mefarshe ha-Miqra I, 454–513 gives an exhaustive list of Rashbam’s various statements of aims and method.
135.
A. Grossman in HBOT I/2, 363–364.
136.
Grossman in HBOT I/2, 367–369; Poznanski, Mavo, LVLXXIV. The epithet bekhor shor – ‘firstling bull’ for Joseph derives from Moses’ blessings of the sons of Israel before his death (Deut. 33, 17).
137.
MS Munich 52 (Steinschneider, 24; ², 35). Poznanski, Mavo, LV. Y. Nevo (ed.), Perushe Rabbi Yosef Bekhor Shor ‛al ha-Tora (Jerusalem 1994); an earlier edition is by H.Y.I (Joseph) Gad; for more see Nevo, 15–17.
138.
We stick to Rosin’s readings, although interesting modifications are possible; see S. Japhet, “Rashbam’s Commentary on Genesis 22” in: Sarah Kamin Memorial Volume (Jerusalem 1994), 349–366, also for a detailed analysis of Rashbam’s interpretation of Gen. 22, 1; I. Kislev, “Perush ha-Ḥizzequni…” modifies a few details of Japhet’s reading. For Rashbam’s difference with Rashi, esp. its methodological aspect, Kamin, Rashi, 270–271; for its embedding in Rashbam’s literary reading of the Torah Liss, Creating Fictional Worlds, 235–237.
139.
GenR 44, 5, the words of R. Huna, as opposed to those of R. Yudan; *1e*. Rashbam disregards the core of this fragment, namely the difference assumed to exist between aḥar and aḥare; see below Sect. 2.5.2.1.
140.
Midrash Samuel I, par. 12, 1 (Buber, 80–81) on “The Ark of the Lord was in the field of the Philistines for seven months” (I Sam. 6, 1); see *1f* for some parallels. Japhet, “Rashbam’s commentary …” (1994), 359, note 44, argues convincingly that the quotation is not an interpolation.
141.
See also the interpolation in Bekhor Shor 2.4.3.3vs.2.
142.
Rosin (1881), 20, note 13: ‘war entgegen’; Idem, R. Samuel b. Meïr als Schrifterklärer, 92. See also Darmesteter/Blondheim, 31 (no. 247): ‘Contrarier: “vexer, offenser”’ (for Hebrew meqanṭer; Pes. 66a); the phonetic similarity between the French verb and the Hebrew qinter is in all probability no coincidence; see e.g. M. Banitt, Rashi, Interpreter of the Biblical Letter (1985), e.g. 43: ‘Intralingual paranomasia’. In Ex. 22, 20 Rashi uses the French verb contrarier also to define the idea of wrongdoing by words (ona’at devarim); Rashbam on Gen 26, 35 offers contrarianz for ‘displeasure’ (morat ruaḥ). Sefer ha-Ga”N (below Sect. 2.5.1.4) reads contraliar. Liss, 237 remarks that, although the word is common in Old French, the Hebrew-French glossaries never use contrarier for nissa.
143.
Rosin, R. Samuel b. Meïr, 109 classified this case as the first of a series of Rashbam’s ‘ansprechenden, aber unhaltbaren Erklärungen’; see also 115 there.
144.
J. Gellis, Tosafot ha-Shalem II (Jerusalem 1983), 203. Japhet, 363–366 includes the reception by modern scholars and points out the strong points of Rashbam’s proposal. The authors of the Be’ur (below Sect. 2.16), who as a rule highly valued Rashbam’s literal exegesis, took the trouble to quote and refute him on this point.
145.
As far as I can see Rashbam was the first—and practically the last—to propose this identification; Ḥazzequni mentions it, as does MS Leiden Or 4765 (below Sect. 2.5.2.15). Note that the Peshitta and subsequent Syrian exegesis have it. Rashi gives the phonological arguments from yamesh and yahel on Ex. 10, 21.
146.
See Maimonides Sect. 2.7.1.1.
147.
On Gen. 6, 7 Bekhor Shor discusses the nature of God’s ‘regret’ at some length.
148.
The davar aḥer (‘another point’) might be an addition; see Rashi Sect. 2.3.2.1 note 84.
149.
See also Rashi Sect. 2.3.3vs.12, a textually disputed passage.
150.
Berliner, Pletath Soferim, 14 (Hebrew part); also (with variants) Gellis II, 215.
151.
Berliner’s brackets denote a variant ‘from another manuscript’ (Ibid. 2; and see p. 24 (German part) the remark that in the first Rashi edition he had in a note misrepresented this passage).
152.
Gellis II, 218.
153.
Rosin (1881), 19–21; see above notes 138 and 155 below; a translation with copious notes in Lockshin (1989), 94–100.
154.
See above note 139.
155.
So Rosin; MT: aḥare, which proves that Rashbam disregarded (or opposed?) the clue of the original saying; see above note 139.
156.
The reading of the manuscript is problematic. We translated Rosin’s reconstruction. Japhet, 351, note 11, proposed: ‘For the land of the Philistines belongs to the territory of Israel and also in (the book of) Joshua the lot is cast over the cities of the five captains of the Philistines, so the Holy One commanded about them “You shall not let a soul remain alive.”’ Kislev, 175 advocates a reading as in Ḥazzequni’s quotation of this passage; see above note 138.
157.
Supplemented from the text of Midrash Samuel.
158.
See above note 142.
159.
Not without reason Lockshin translates the imperfect yera’e (vs. 14) as a past tense.
160.
Text from Nevo, 1994; see also Gad, 1956.
161.
The scribe of MS Munich 52 added here: ‘Some explain nissa: He elevated him and lifted him and made known about him to the world how important he was, as in “Lift (nesa) over us the light of Your countenance” (Ps. 4, 7[6]), and as in “Lift a banner (neśa’ nes)” (Is. 11, 12), for nes is something great.’
162.
In general E.E. Urbach, Ba‘ale ha-Tosafot (Jerusalem ⁴1980); HBOT I/2, 370–371; earlier literature on the biblical commentaries include the still dazzling enumerations in Zunz, Zur Geschichte und Literatur, 60–107; Poznanski, Mavo…, XC-CXIVII. The text editions are often difficult to come by; several can be found in the 6th volume of the Miqra’ot Gedolot – Shulzinger Edition. J. Gellis, Tosafot ha-Shalem, Oṣar perushe Ba‘ale ha-Tosafot (arranged in the format of M.M. Kasher’s well-known and multivolume Tora Shlema) enumerates his sources: 74 printed works (I, 11–20) and no less than 171 manuscripts of ‘Tosafist commentaries on the Torah’ (I, 21–38); most of them are anonymous digests, others have authors whose names are known to us. From an editorial and bibliographical point of view Gellis’ collection is far from perfect, but we chose to refer to it for its many and various bibliographical references to earlier literature; for this purpose we also used Y.M. Orlian’s Introduction to Sefer ha-Ga”N (below Sect. 2.5.1.4).
163.
An example is the differentiation between aḥar and aḥare (see below Sect. 2.5.2.1), another the rare traditions stating that Isaac actually died on the altar; see above Sect. 1.3.1.4.
164.
A long description in Schiller-Szinessy, 159–165 (nr. 53); Reif, 86–87. I.G. Marcus, “Exegesis for the few and for the many” (1989), 7* also mentions MSS Strassbourg 44 en Paris 260.
165.
Y. Sh. Lange (ed.), Perushe ha-Tora le-R. Yehuda he-Ḥasid (Jerusalem 1975); for sources and editorial method see his Introduction (and p. 213). As a work of scholarship the edition has a poor reputation; see I.G. Marcus, Piety and Society, 154; Idem, “Exegesis for the few and for the many” (1989), 10; and Lange’s somewhat enigmatic remark on p. XII-XIII. Gellis I, 16–17.
166.
G. Brin, “Qawwim le-ferush ha-Tora shel R. Yehuda he-Ḥasid” (1983), 215–226; I.G. Marcus, “Exegesis for the few and for the many” (1989), 7*–13*.
167.
Many topics mentioned here and in the following pages will be discussed in greater detail below in Sect. 2.5.2.
168.
Gellis I, 21.
169.
Y. Dan, “Sefer ha-Ḥokhma le-R. El‘azar mi-Worms u-mashma‘uto le-toldot toratah shel Ḥasidut Ashkenaz” in: Ziyyon 29 (1964), 168–181 = ‘Iyyunim be-sifrut Ḥaside Ashkenaz (Ramat Gan 1975), 44–57; Idem, “The Ashkenazi Hasidic ‘Gates of Wisdom’” in: G. Nahon/Ch. Touati (eds.), Hommages à Georges Vajda (Louvain 1980), 183–189; I.G. Marcus, “Exegesis for the few and for the many” (1989), esp. 13*–18*.
170.
Ch. Konyevsky (ed.), Perush ha-Roqeaḥ ‘al ha-Tora, 3 vols. (Bene Berak 1978–1982); see Y. Dan, “Perush ha-Tora le-R. El‘azar mi-Germaiza” in: Qiryat Sefer 59 (1984), 644.
171.
Dan, “‘Gates of Wisdom’ …”, 184.
172.
As explained above Sect. 1.4.2.
173.
Here we also find the observation that the Torah has Ga”N = 53 weekly portions, instead of he usual 54; see below Sect. 2.5.1.4.
174.
Cp. Marcus, “Exegesis for the Few and the Many”, 15*.
175.
See above Sect. 1.3.1.4.
176.
According to A. Even Chen ‘Aqedat-Yiṣḥaq… (2006), 26–31 these Midrash quotations reflect the atmosphere of persecution and martyrdom so vividly expressed in the Crusade chronicles and piyyutim of the period mentioned above Sect. 1.3.1.3; see below Sect. 2.5.2.7: Isaac, 2.5.2.8: Sarah.
177.
E. Korach/Z. Leitner (eds.), Perush Rabbenu Efrayim b. R. Shimshon (Jerusalem 1992; ³2009). Gellis I, 17.
178.
The Introduction of the edition also mentions MS Munich 15/1 (Steinschneider, 4; ²6); Montefiore 323/4 (Hirschfeld, 98); New York, Yeshiva University. I found no reference for Or 10855, nor for Ephraim ben Samson in Margoliouth.
179.
MS Vienna 19/5 (Schwarz, 19) written about 1290; Orlian, 13–18,102–106.
180.
Poznanski, Mavo, XCVII-CIV; Gellis I, 13.
181.
Sefer Shem ha-Gedolim (ed. Ben Jakob, 1864), II, 13b; we happened to meet the same remark in Eleazar of Worms’s Sefer ha-Ḥokhma; see above note 173. The usual number of weekly portions is of course 54.
182.
Y.M. Orlian (ed.), Sefer ha-Gan, perush la-Ḥamishsha Ḥumshe Tora (Jerusalem 2009). It proved impossible to consult Orlian’s Yeshiva University thesis Sefer Hagan: Text and Analysis of the Biblical Commentary (New York 1973), Vol. I: Genesis.
183.
Hadar Zeqenim ‛al Ḥameshet Ḥumshe ha-Tora, kolel shne sefarim sheluvim yaḥad, I: Perushim me-rabbotenu Ba‛ale ha-Tosafot ‛al ha-Tora we-‛al-perush Rashi… (Leghorn 1840; repr. in Oṣar Perushim la-Tora, Jerusalem s.a.); the other text, printed alongside, is Perush Rabbenu ha-Ro”sh (below Sect. 2.5.1.11). Gellis I, 13; Orlian, 86–87; Nevo, “Hadar Zeqenim…” (1987–’88).
184.
In: Da‘at Zeqenim (Livorno 1783), in parallel columns with Minḥat Yehuda (below Sect. 2.5.1.9). Gellis I, 12; Orlian, 85–86. The text was also printed in Miqra’ot Gedolot – Shulzinger Edition. An edition dated 1967 (= Warsaw 1876) was inaccessible to us.
185.
Ch.D. Chavel (ed.), Ḥazzequni, Perushe ha-Tora le-rabbenu Ḥizqiya b”r Manoaḥ (Jerusalem 1981); also printed in Chumash Torat Chayyim; Orlian, 87–88. I see no argument in favour or against either Ḥazzequni or Ḥizzequni.
186.
S. Japhet, “Perush ha-Ḥizzequni la-Tora” in: Rabbi Mordechai Breuer Festschrift I (1992), 91–111; esp. 108–109. Kislev, “Perush ha-Ḥizzequni ke-‘ed nusaḥ le-ferush Rashba”m la-Tora” in: Shai le-Sarah Japhet (2007), 173–193.
187.
E.g. on vs. 12: ‘“Now I know.” Everything is revealed before Him, but here the meaning is: Now I have made known, as in “I knew you by name” (Ex. 33, 12), “And I knew (you) by name” (Ex. 33, 17) where the Targum has expressions of fame.’
188.
See 2.5.2.1: aḥar/aḥare, note 214; 2.5.3.7 note 320.
189.
We used (via HebrewBooks.org) the hardly legible Pa‘neaḥ Raza, Perush yafe ‘al Ḥamishsha Ḥumshe Tora (Prague 1607); Gellis I, 16; Orlian, 94–95; Nevo, “Pa‘neaḥ Raza …” (1985-‘86). There is a to me unaccessible edition by Mekhon Torat Rishonim (Jerusalem 1998). Abba Zions’ dissertation (Yeshiva University 1970) proved untraceable; see Bibliography. Lange (ed.), Palṭi’el, Introduction, 8 made use of a Pa‘neaḥ Raza manuscript (MS Munich 50; Steinschneider, 23; ²34–35).
190.
In: Da‘at Zeqenim (Leghorn 1783) together with ‘Tosefot Da‘at Zeqenim’; see above Sect. 2.5.1.6. Gellis I, 15; Orlian, 92–93; there are several MSS containing Minḥat Yehuda, e.g. Paris 168. Later editions and Ch. Touitou’s 2004 Bar Ilan thesis were not accessible to me.
191.
M. Grossberg (ed.), Sefer peshaṭim u-ferushim ‘al Ḥamishsha Ḥumshe Torah mi-rabbenu Ya‘aqov mi-Wina (Mainz 1888). Gellis I, 19; Orlian, 90–91. The identity of the place is still in dispute.
192.
In: Hadar Zeqenim ‛al Ḥameshet Ḥumshe ha-Tora,… II: Perush Rabbenu ha-Ro”sh ‘al ha-Tora (Leghorn 1840; repr. in Oṣar Perushim la-Tora, Jerusalem s.a.). Miqra’ot Gedolot – Shulzinger Edition. A. Aptowitzer, “Le commentaire du Pentateuque attribué à R. Ascher ben Jechiel” in: REJ 55 (1906), 58–86; Gellis I, 20; Orlian, 95–96.
193.
We made use (via HebrewBooks.org) of the Sefer Imre No‘am. Be’ur ‘al ha-Tora le-khol ḥekh yin‘am… (Cracow 1598). Gellis I, 11; Orlian, 89–90. M.H. Harris (ed.), Jacob d’Illescas, Sefer Imre Noʻam we-hu qoveṣ mi-perushe rabbotenu Baʻale ha-Tosafot we-‘od ‘al ha-Tora (Jerusalem 1969/1970) was not at our disposal.
194.
Y.Sh. Lange (ed.), Perushe ha-Tora le-R. Ḥayyim Palṭi’el talmid ḥaver shel Mahara”m me-Rothenburg (Jerusalem 1981), based on MS Hamburg 40 (Steinschneider, 10–12), MS British Library 1080 (Margoliouth, 471), MS Munich 62 (Steinschneider, 27–28; ²41). Idem, “Le-zehuto shel rabbi Ḥayyim Palṭi’el” in: Alei Sefer 8 (1980), 140–146; Idem, “Perushe R. Ḥayyim Palṭi’el ‘al ha-Tora” in: Tarbiz 43 (1973-’74), 231–234. Gellis I, 20; Orlian, 96–97.
195.
S.D. Sassoon (ed.), Sefer Moshav Zeqenim ‘al ha-Tora, qoveṣ perushe rabbotenu Ba‘ale ha-Tosafot z”l (London 1959); the manuscript was written in southern Italy in the year 1472 by the scribe Samuel ben David ibn Shoham; the edition is not very well reputed. Gellis I, 14–15; Orlian, 93–94; Nevo, in: Sinai 100, 587–593. A dissertation Yeshiva University NY 1968 by Moses Zurcher (? רשרוס) was not accessible.
196.
Zotenberg, 33–34. Lange examined it in comparison with the Sassoon MS in: Ha-Ma‘ayan 12, 3 (1972), 75–95, with two appendices containing the commentary on Gen. 1, 1 – 2, 19 and 22, 1 – 23, 20.
197.
Lange, 76: ‘The author (of the Vorlage) was an Ashkenazi Jew who studied with R. Ṭuvya of Vienne and R. Jeḥiel of Paris.’
198.
Lange, 85–88; the Sassoon edition has text for Gen. 22 on vs. 1 only (with slight variants), in the following order: Rashbam, Rabbenu Tam, R. Judah the Pious (interrupted).
199.
The source for Rabbenu Tam remains unclear; see below Jacob ben Asher 2.5.1.15, and more in Gellis II, on vs. 1, nr. 7 and several Midrashim. *2b*
200.
Y. Reinitz (ed.), Perush Ba‘al ha-Ṭurim ‘al ha-Tora le-rabbenu Ya‘aqov b”r Asher zlh”h (Bene Berak 1971).
201.
J. Stern (ed.), Sefer perush ha-Ṭur ha-arokh ‘al ha-Tora me-… rabbenu Ya‘aqov ben … ha-Ro”sh zṣ”l (Jerusalem 1961; repr. 1981); also in Perush ‘al ha-Tora me-rabbenu Ya‘aqov ben … ha-Ro”sh zlh”h (Hannover 1839; repr. Bene Berak 1979).
202.
Ibn Ezra 2.4: ‘Abraham misled them so that they would not leave before his return and would not upset Isaac so that he would flee.’
203.
Above Sect. 2.2.3; Appendix V.
204.
See more below Sect. 2.5.2.16: Gemaṭria.
205.
Ch.Y.I. Gad (ed.), Perush ha-Tora shel Rabbenu Efrayim z”l (Johannesburg 1950). H. Michel, Or ha-Ḥayyim (Jerusalem ²1965), nrs. 512, 513.
206.
J. Rosenthal (ed.), Sepher Joseph Hamekane auctore R. Joseph b. R. Nathan Official (Saec. XIII) (Jerusalem 1970); Gellis I, 14.
207.
See note 162 above. Gellis’ editorial practice has difficulties in coping with the mass and variety of the source material involved; the erroneous piyyuṭ quotation from MS Oxford 284 identified below in note 402 is just an example.
208.
GenR 44, 5 (428) *1e*; for parallels, reception history, etc. see A. van der Heide, “Ahar samukh aharei muflag” (2003), 257–263. ‘Continuous’ is meant here as ‘connected to the preceding passage’ or ‘recent’. S. Japhet, “Perush ha-Ḥizzequni la-Tora” (1992) gives 93–95 an analysis of the Tosafist reception of this tradition.
209.
Note that ‘Eleazar of Worms’ chose to record the rule in the version of R. Yudan; below section “The gate of differentiation”.
210.
And in disregard of the difference between aḥar and aḥare: ‘All texts which read aḥar are connected (meḥubbar) to the preceding passage.’ See above Sect. 2.4.2.1 note 139.
211.
As Rashi always does with this expression; see Kamin, Rashi, 231–247 and above Sect. 2.3.1 note 87.
212.
See Appendix III and Rashi Sect. 2.3.3vs.19.
213.
Japhet, “Rashbam”, note 21; Ead., “Ḥizkuni”, 93–94: ‘a scene added to the Biblical story’; the super-commentators (e.g. Mizraḥi and others as collected in Arba’a Perushim, ad loc.) show themselves aware of the issue but apparently do not draw this conclusion.
214.
As noted above Sect. 2.4.1 note 138 and below Sect. 2.5.3.7 note 320 Chavel considers this passage an interpolation, but Japhet and Kislev argue that Ḥazzequni really quoted Rashbam here.
215.
As they did at the creation of man (Sanh. 38b) and at the revelation of the Torah (Shabb. 88b); and cp. *1d*.
216.
But Bekhor Shor’s formulation is quite similar; see above Sect. 2.4.3.3.
217.
Ned. 32b: ‘The Holy One wanted to remove the priesthood from Sem, as it is written: “He was priest of God Most High” (Gen. 14, 18). When he let the blessing of Abraham precede the blessing of the Almighty, he removed it from Abraham, as it is written: And he blessed him and said: “Blessed be Abram by the God Most High” (vs. 19). Abraham said to him: Should one let the blessing of the servant precede the blessing of his Maker? Immediately He gave (the priesthood) to Abraham, as it is said: “… you are priest according to the order of Melchizedek” (Ps. 110, 4). (That is:) according to the speech of Melchizedek, and that is what is written: “He was priest of God Most High.” He was priest, and his offspring not.’
218.
See above Sect. 1.2.3.12: The role of Sarah.
219.
Lange (ed.), a.l. reads them as arguments for the meaning ‘thereafter’ and also adduces the similar reading of Pa‘neaḥ Raza, MS Munich 50.
220.
See GenR 56, 10 (607–608): ‘Abraham called it Yir’e, “Abraham called the name of the place ‘the-Lord-will-see’” (Gen. 22,14), Sem called it Shalem, “And Melchizedek, king of Salem” (Gen. 14,18). Said the Holy One: If I call it Salem as Sem did, Abraham, this righteous man, will be annoyed. Indeed I will call it after both of them: Jerusalem, Yir’e (and) Shalem.’ The inclusion of this topic by Baḥya (below Sect. 2.9.4 note 540), Jonah Gerondi (below Sect. 2.13.3), and the Anonymous (Sect. 2.13.6.2{19}) might be an indication of their knowledge of Ashkenazi traditions.
221.
The notes to the translation contain a modest measure of technical information and details. We have confidently left to the care of specialists such complicated methods as described e.g. in EJ vol. 7, 373–374; EJ2 vol. 7, 426–427.
222.
And see Efraim ben Samson 2.5.3.3vs.6.
223.
For a similar allusion see Efraim ben Samson 2.5.3.3vs.14.
224.
See also above Sect. 2.5.2.6.
225.
The topic, derived from the Midrash, *24a* is treated twice over and expanded to a few other cases; see the translation Sect. 2.5.3.2 Various. Note that Efraim ben Samson Sect. 2.5.3.3 Ketiva Ashkenazit vs. 11 seems to make a mistake here.
226.
See Lange (ed.), Palṭi’el, a.l., note 225.
227.
Lange (ed.), Perushe ha-Tora le-R’ Yehuda he-Ḥasid, 26–27.
228.
R. Judah’s explanations were collected by his son Moses Saltman.
229.
In the MS ḥazara, read: re’ayya.
230.
In Zechariah’s vision a second angel stops the measurement of Jerusalem ordained earlier by the angel who spoke with the prophet.
231.
Also found in Pa‘neaḥ Raza, Imre No‘am; cp. MS Paris 260 (ed. Lange) and Peshaṭim u-Ferushim.
232.
Not in MS Moscow; cp. Moshav Zeqenim.
233.
Also in Pa‘neaḥ Raza, MS Paris 260, MS Oxford 2344, Peshaṭim u-Ferushim; anonymously in Imre No‘am, Jacob ben Asher.
234.
Konyevsky (ed.), Perush ha-Roqeaḥ I, 171–177.
235.
Cp. Gen. 18, 12.15 on Sarah’s ‘laughing’: wa-tiṣḥaq, etc. Note that this passage imitates the traditional Midrash; *6* see also below vs. 17.
236.
German: ‘until’, ךאנסב in the text.
237.
See also below section Various vs.7.
238.
In Aramaic; in Hebrew in Shavu’ot 47b, GenR 16, 3 (145), with variants in Aramaic.
239.
Gellis (vs. 13, nr. 2) reads here from MS Oxford 268 (= ‘Eleazar of Worms’): ‘The name of this ram was Isaac and it replaced his son Isaac’ (and continues with the passage that belongs in 2.5.3.2 Various vs.13).
240.
Midrash imitation as in vs. 2.
241.
See Sect. 2.5.2.1; note that the rule appears here in the version of R. Yudan.
242.
In Gen. 18, 10 the three men promise a son to Sarah and in vs. 14 the Lord does so again.
243.
Cp. the story in Ta‘an. 25a that tells of Eleazar ben Pedat’s refusal to exchange his life of poverty for the possibility of a better life.
244.
Denotes the mysterious ways of God’s revelations.
245.
As specified in the next note.
246.
Tamid I, 1: ‘The priests kept watch at three places in the Temple: At the Chamber of Avtinas, the Chamber of the Flame, and the Chamber of the Hearth.’
247.
Men. 49b, cp. Arakhin II, 5.
248.
Cp. PT Yoma I, 1: ‘Why “as far as Hebron”? This is said as a reminder of the merit of the Fathers.’
249.
With the waw = 6.
250.
Ha-Moriyya (written plene as in II Chron. 3, 1) and Ḥevron have the value 266.
251.
Cp. *22* and the quotation from Tamid 31b there.
252.
Cp. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: ‘He split wood of olive, fig and date, fit for a burnt offering.’
253.
After the destruction prayer took the place of the sacrifices.
254.
’l ’rṣ h-m(w)ryh = 582 (or 588, depending on the presence of a waw), yrwšlym = 596, or 580 when read as yršlm; see below at note 380.
255.
Tanḥ Wa-Yera 22 (fol. 30a); see above Sect. 1.2.3.4: Satan’s involvement.
256.
Gemaṭria problematic: w-yr’ ‘t h-mqwm m-rḥq = 1157/hu’ r’h šlhbt b-hr = 1162.
257.
Gemaṭria’t h-mqwm =592 = zh yršlm; see below notes 300 and 381.
258.
See the story as told in Tanḥ Wa-Yera 22 (fol. 30b), above Sect. 1.2.3.4: Satan’s involvement and *19c*.
259.
Possibly a remote case of ribbui.
260.
Cp. PRE 31 (fol. 71b; Friedlander, 228); see also above Sect. 1.2.3.10: Resurrection.
261.
Mar reminds of Moriah more easily when the latter is spelled without the waw.
262.
Ya‘an = ḥalaf zeh = 130.
263.
Cp. Midrash Samuel 32, 2; the implication is that even sand can be fertile soil.
264.
Yalq. Sh. 109 (Heyman, 491). Gellis II, 281. Ḥazzquni on Gen. 24, 63: “And Isaac went out.” Where from? From Paradise, where he remained three years after the Binding. See note 301 below.
265.
See above Sect. 1.2.3.12: The role of Sarah.
266.
Cp. GenR 57, 3 (614).
267.
GenR 57, 4 (618).
268.
See above Sect. 2.5.2.6 note 217 for Ned. 32b, where the priesthood of Melchizedek (identified with Shem) is transferred to Abraham.
269.
šnhm = 405; b-lb šlm = 404; cp. *19*. See Rashi Sect. 2.3.3; below note 303.
270.
Tanḥ Ṣaw 13: ‘Count the letters of “And he took the knife” and you will find that they are twelve, conform the number of inspections applied to the knife.’ *34* and below at note 304.
271.
Source not clear; repetion of the name: *24a*.
272.
Source not clear.
273.
Saviv | saviv ‘on every side’, with paseq in between.
274.
Cp. PRE 38 (fol. 89b; Friedlander, 294); but he died in peace.
275.
Nedarim 65a, top, and Rashi there.
276.
And he did not need to be called two separate times.
277.
The authority of the Angel was not sufficient to make Abraham stop; cp. *24c*
278.
Rebekah, who was to marry Isaac, was born immediately after Abraham had called that place ‘Lord’.
279.
Cp. GenR 49, 4 (501); 64, 4 (703–704).
280.
Read shemah‘her name’ instead of MT shamma ‘there’; so in Bava Batra 75b.
281.
Mekhilta de-R.Y, Bo 11 (39): “And he will see the blood”: He will see the blood of the Binding of Isaac, as is written: “Abraham called the name of that place The-Lord-will-see” (Gen. 22, 14). And it is also written: “When he was about to destroy, he saw (and relented)” (I Chron. 21, 15, with variants). What did he see? He saw the blood of the Binding of Isaac, as is written: “God will see to the sheep for the burnt-offering” (Gen. 22, 8). And see above Sects. 1.2.3.10: Resurrection and 1.3.1.1.
282.
In the context: “Live in spite of your blood” (be-damayikh ḥayi: 104 x 2 = 208; Yiṣḥaq = 208).
283.
In the Ṣidduq ha-Din; Baer, 586.
284.
Cp. GenR 56, 10 (607–608).
285.
A lost Midrash collection; Grünhut, Liqquṭim, II, 16b did not include this reference (nor the next; below vs. 20).
286.
PRE 31 beginning (fol. 69a; Friedlander, 223): ‘The tenth trial: … He tried Abraham each time again in order to know his heart whether he would be able to stand and to keep all the commandments of the Torah (or not, and whilst as yet the Torah had not been given, Abraham kept all the precepts of the Torah), as it is said: “Because (‘eqev) that Abraham obeyed My voice …” (Gen. 26, 5).’ For more references Tora Shlema, a.l., note 16; and see below note 392.
287.
Read probably ‘their place (meqoman)’ as does the opening phrase of Zev. V instead of ‘its place (meqomo)’; cp. Gellis II, vs. 16, nr. 4.
288.
See below note 293. Nikhbadot medubbar bakh = shem qadosh needs further inquiry.
289.
Cp. GenR 57, 4 (614); *35*.
290.
Korach/Leitner (eds.), 69–70, 73–74.
291.
̓t = 401 = ̓š ‘l.
292.
Cp. Tanḥ Wa-Yera 22 (fol. 30b).
293.
Maqom = 186. Yhwh in this formula (‘once yod, twice he, twice waw, twice he’) equals 42; in full spelling the value is 68 or 70, so the statement needs further inquiry.
294.
For Abraham’s hospitality see e.g. PesR 40 (fol. 171a).
295.
Cp. Sabb. 55a.
296.
Cp. Avot V, 24.
297.
Er. 54b; Yoma 29a.
298.
Midrash Tehillim 22, 1 (par. 14; fol. 94a).
299.
By defeating Baal’s prophets; I Kings 18.
300.
When spelled as Yršlm; see above note 257.
301.
Ba mi-bo; cp. Gellis II, 280–281 and note 264 above.
302.
See Tosefot Hadar Zeqenim on Gen. 25, 27 (fol. 10b); Gellis III, 23–24.
303.
šnhm = 405; b-lb šlm = 404; above note 269.
304.
See note 270 above.
305.
See ‘Eleazar of Worms’ 2.5.3.2 Various vs.11, were we find the opposite: ‘there is no generation of saints and pious ones without someone like Abraham.’
306.
Not clear; the passage may refer to the difference between God’s command to offer (vs. 1) and the Angel’s command to desist (vs. 12), as elaborated by ‘Eleazar of Worms’ 2.5.3.5 Angels.
307.
Cp. BB 14a: ‘The Tablets (of the Law) were six (handbreadths) in length, six in breadth, and three in thickness.’ 6x6x3 = 108, for the two tables: 216. The three verses Ex. 14, 19–21, which are said to contain the Name of Seventy-Two, count 216 letters in total, hence the identification of the Tables with the Name. See e.g. Baḥya on Ex. 31, 18.
308.
Y.M. Orlian (ed.), Sefer ha-Ga”N, 160–162.
309.
See School of Rashi Sect. 2.4.2.2 note 142.
310.
E.g. in vs. 13: “And he offered (the ram) as a burnt offering”, or in the plainly sacrificial use of the verb ‘ala hif. in e.g. Lev. 17, 8.
311.
Cp. Tanḥ Ṣaw 13 (fol. 9a): ‘What is “after”? Nothing else than that after the Holy One had seen that he had come—with all his heart and soul—to offer Isaac his son as a burnt-offering, He sent him the ram.’ *34*
312.
In: Tosefot Hadar Zeqenim, fol. 8a.
313.
Lange (ed.), Palṭi’el, 53 note 18: Pa‘neaḥ Raza, MS München: ‘Even so the ‘saddling’ of Joseph came to protect against the ‘saddling’ of Pharao.’
314.
GenR 57, 4 (614–615).
315.
Da‘at Zeqenim, fol. 9a-b.
316.
No immediate source found; see above Sect. 2.5.2.17.
317.
This quotation is plainly incomplete but the sources give little clues for completion. The usual translation of Zech. 3, 8 is: “For those men are a sign of things to come.” In Sanh. 93a there are slightly different opinions on the fate of Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah: ‘Rav said: They died by the Evil Eye; Samuel said: They drowned in the spittle (of the jeering bystanders); R. Johanan said: They went to the Land of Israel, married women and brought forth sons and daughters.’
318.
Chavel (ed.), 82–84.
319.
On Gen. 21, 34; see Appendix III.
320.
Since manuscript evidence is lacking, Chavel considers the following quotation from Rashbam an interpolation; Japhet, “Ḥizkuni …”, 96–97 and Kislev, “Ḥizkuni’s Commentary …”, 175–180 argue its authenticity; see also School of Rashi Sect. 2.4.2.1 note 138.
321.
So Rashbam Sect. 2.4.2.3 note 145.
322.
On the difference see Rashi Sect. 2.3.2.3 note 96.
323.
See Kimḥi Sect. 2.6.3.
324.
At the site of the future Temple.
325.
And would be no argument to stop the sacrifice.
326.
Rashi: ‘affection (and encouragement)’ *24a*; the notion of haste (ḥippazon) has probably been taken from or was inspired by Ibn Ezra.
327.
Litt.: ‘making great the name’. Targum Onkelos has: (we-)rabbitakh be-shum. See also Ibn Ezra Sect. 2.2.2.1; Kimḥi Sect. 2.6.3.
328.
Ibn Ezra: ‘“After caught”: After it had been caught in the thicket by its horns. ... So the meaning is: after its being caught.’ And see Appendix V.
329.
See Tosefot Hadar Zeqenim Sect. 2.5.3.5vs.14.
330.
Cp. I Kings 4, 20: “Judah and Israel were numerous as the sand at the sea; they ate and drank and were content.”
331.
An interesting variant: Tosefot Hadar Zeqenim, fol. 10b (on Gen. 25, 27): ‘R. Isaac ben Asher ha-Levi (ha-Rib”a) found a Midrash (saying) that Isaac was hidden in Paradise for two years in order to recover from the wound that he received when his father began to slaughter him.’
332.
Pa‘neaḥ Raza (Prague 1607), fols. 15a-b via hebrewbooks.org.
333.
See above Sect. 2.5.3.2 Various.
334.
See above Sect. 2.5.3.1.
335.
Cp. Zevaḥim 97b and Tosafists a.l. Also below Moshav Zeqenim Sect. 2.5.3.14 note 368.
336.
Between brackets in the original; translation doubtful.
337.
See above Sect. 2.5.2.12.
338.
From the Aramaic Aqdamut Millin for the first day of Shavuot by R. Me’ir ben Isaac; the word ashwata is problematic, ‘might’?
339.
Brackets in the original.
340.
Bi nishba‘ti = 844 = ki-ve-vaqqashatekha; brackets in the original.
341.
See above Sect. 2.5.2.1.
342.
Da‘at Zeqenim, fol. 10a.
343.
Ḥazzquni, a.l.: At this age Isaac could well have had sons and daughters.
344.
Cp. in different wording GenR 56, 10 (607).
345.
Grossberg (ed.), Sefer Peshaṭim u-Ferushim, 24–25.
346.
The edition reads atta – ‘you’ instead of ‘atta – ‘now’.
347.
Ani hefer; read mefer ?
348.
See *4* and Appendix I.
349.
Text difficult; at least read naḥuṣ – ‘urgent’ instead of ba-ḥuṣ.
350.
Hadar Zeqenim, fol. 7a.
351.
Sefer Imre No‘am, 89 via hebrewbook.org.
352.
Rashbam Sect. 2.4.3.2 with some variations.
353.
See above Sect. 2.5.2.12.
354.
The following passages are irrelevant to our purpose; cp. BB 16b.
355.
Lange, Perushe ha-Tora le-R’ Ḥayim Palṭi’el, 52–53, based on MS Hamburg 40, unless otherwise stated.
356.
Lange, note 18: Pa‘neaḥ Raza, MS München: ‘Even so the ‘saddling’ of Joseph came to protect against the ‘saddling’ of Pharao.’
357.
See above Sect. 2.5.2.12.
358.
Reading uncertain; see above Sect. 2.5.2.6, and Ned. 32b where the priesthood of Melchizedek (identified with Sem) is transferred to Abraham.
359.
The father of R. Aharon, the author of Sefer ha-Ga”N; see above Sects. 2.5.3.4vs.20 and 2.5.2.1.
360.
Text from MS Paris 260, ed. I.Sh. Lange in Ha-Ma‘ayan 12, 3 (1972), 85–88. S.D. Sassoon (ed.), Sefer Moshav Zeqenim, 30 is incomplete and has text (with slight variants) only for vs. 1, in the following order: Rashbam, Rabbenu Tam, R. Judah the Pious (interrupted).
361.
Bi-stam; Sassoon: be-seter – ‘in secret’.
362.
See above Sect. 2.5.1.14 note 199.
363.
See above Sect. 1.2.3.4: Satan’s involvement, and *19c*; our PRE reads differently.
364.
Reference not found.
365.
The editor corrected wṣ”‘(we-ṣarikh ‘iyyun) into wṣ”l (we-ṣarikh le-faresh).
366.
Namely: ‘they both went of one mind’.
367.
And thus prevent the sacrifice from happening; cp. GenR 56, 5 (600).
368.
Cp. above Pa‘neaḥ Raza 2.5.3.8vs.3. Worms make wood unfit for a sacrifice (Middot II, 5; see also below Naḥmanides 2.8.2.1) and splitting was needed to check this.
369.
For Hagar and Sarah see Sect. 2.5.2.12; Sefer ha-Ga”N offers little a.l.
370.
Cp. Sanh 93a and above Da‘at Zeqenim Sect. 2.5.3.6 note 317.
371.
Cp. GenR 57, 3 (614).
372.
GenR 57, 4 (615).
373.
J. Stern (ed.), Sefer perush ha-Ṭur ha-arokh, 44–45.
374.
See below Naḥmanides Sect. 2.8.1.1.
375.
Our text of Naḥmanides reads hora’a – ‘instruction’; and see *7*.
376.
Not in our texts of Bereshit Rabba; see *21* = PRE.
377.
See above Sect. 2.2.3vs.5: ‘Abraham … would not upset Isaac so that he would flee.’
378.
Below Sect. 2.8.2.1vs.12.
379.
Y. Reinitz (ed.), Perush Ba‘al ha-Ṭurim ‘al ha-Tora, 42–43.
380.
See above note 254.
381.
See above note 257.
382.
Tamid 31b; cp. *22*. See also below note 399.
383.
W-yqr ’ ’ly w ml’ k h(?) m n h-šmy m = 122(?); mk’l hyh = 111. For Michael see e.g. PesR 40 (171a): ‘The Holy One spoke immediately to Michael: What are you standing there? Don’t let him. Michael began to call out to him: “And the Angel of the Lord…”’
384.
GenR 64, 4 (703–704).
385.
zr‘ Abrhm = 535 = zr‘ brk h ?
386.
Cp. Shabbat 146a: ‘Abraham fathered Ishmael, Isaac fathered Esau, Jacob fathered twelve tribes who were blameless.’
387.
Gad, Perush ha-Tora shel Rabbenu Efrayim z”l, 19, via hebrewbooks.org.
388.
Taken from Naḥmanides below Sect. 2.8.2.1, with slight variants.
389.
The usual view is that Ishmael repented at some time during his father’s life and therefore was allowed to accompany Isaac at his burial; BB 16b; Rashi on Gen. 25, 9.
390.
Word unknown to me.
391.
Cp. GenR 56, 5 (600).
392.
Cp. Yoma 28b on Gen. 26, 5; GenR 49, 2 (500v., see the notes); above note 286. See, somewhat differently, MS Oxford 284 below.
393.
Rosenthal (ed.), Sepher Joseph Hamekane, 40; Gellis II, 214.
394.
No source found.
395.
See below at note 404.
396.
The following quotations from Gellis’ manuscript material are grouped by manuscript and then follow the order of the verses.
397.
Also in MS Moscow, Ginzburg 82.
398.
In the context of a detailed description of the sacrificial cult. See also above Sect. 2.5.3.15vs.10.
399.
See e.g. Yoma III, 1 and fol. 28a; Tamid IV, 1 and fol. 31b; *22*.
400.
We find an enumeration of ‘third days’ in e.g. GenR 56, 1 (595).
401.
Also in MS Vatican 45.
402.
Read: ‘(He was dignified/distinguished) by observing the fiery pillar … (with its top) at the abode of dwelling (mekhon shevet)’, as in the Meḥayye of the Musaf for the second day of Rosh ha-Shana.
403.
Namely 248.
404.
And see, differently, above at note 395.
405.
Cp. GenR 56, 5 (600v., see the commentary).
406.
Cp. above Sect. 1.2.3.4: Satan; and *21b*, *23b*, *24b*.
407.
The following passage is almost identical to Tanḥ Shelaḥ 14 (*35*); cp. BB 15a, GenR 57, 4 (614).
408.
Cp. Gen. 14, 19–20; Ned. 32b, and above Sect. 2.5.2.6 note 217.
409.
Apart from the one on Genesis, which was the last, Kimḥi left us commentaries on Chronicles, Psalms, Proverbs, Former and Latter Prophets. F.E. Talmage, David Kimhi. The Man and the Commentaries (1975); M. Cohen, “David Qimhi (Radak)” in: HBOT I/2 (2000), 396–415, 388–389 (bibliography); M.Z. Cohen, Three Approaches to Biblical Metaphor (2003), subject index. Note the variety of the transcriptions of the family name.
410.
See e.g. D.J. Silver, Maimonidean Criticism … (1965), 148–159, 175–180 and Cohen, HBOT I/2, 398–399.
411.
See above Sect. 2.4.2.1 note 140; 2.4.3.2vs.1. Rashbam adduced the arguments, Joseph Bekhor Shor did not.
412.
See the well known, and much discussed, passage in Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah, H. Melakhim IX.
413.
See above Sect. 2.1.3; below Maimonides Sect. 2.7.3.
414.
Above Sect. 2.2.2.3; 2.2.3vs.1:‘(Saadya) Gaon said that the word nissa (means): to show mankind his righteousness; he also takes “I know” as ‘I have made known.’ But this Gaon knew very well that on the moment that (Abraham) bound his son not even his servants were present.’
415.
Above Sects. 2.2.2.1 and 2.2.2.2.
416.
Shav ha-ḥeleq kol: ‘the particular has become universal,’ i.e. it became part of God’s providentia generalis.
417.
See above Ibn Ezra Sect. 2.2.3 note 62 on ‘Arabic fa-.’ In his Mikhlol (Rittenberg, 44a; cp. Chomsky, par. 86 a, 1; 352) Kimḥi gives the following extensive explanation of the phenomenon signalized here:
The waw serves to add something, but sometimes it doesn’t add anything and serves only to mark the beginning of a word, as e.g. in “And these are the sons of Zibeon: and Aiah and Anah” (Gen. 36, 24). “On the day that he offered his sacrifice it shall be eaten; and tomorrow and what is left of it shall be eaten” (Lev. 7, 16), which means: ‘What is left from the day of the sacrifice shall be eaten tomorrow on the second day’. “On the third day and Abraham looked up” (Gen. 22, 4). And many more like these. And there is a waw that merely serves as a caption: “And it was in the days of Ahasverus” (Esther 1, 1); “And it was in the thirtieth year” (Ez. 1, 1), and similar cases. Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra wrote: ‘These waw’s are like Arabic fa- that has no function but to denote the beginning of an utterance.’ But my father (Joseph Kimḥi) wrote in Sefer ha-Galuy (Mathews, 6) that every superfluous waw in the Scriptures is a hint to a missing word similar to it (in meaning), as in: “And Tamar sat down and desolate” (II Sam. 13, 20), which means: ‘sad and desolate’ or ‘worrying (and desolate)’, and the like. […] Also: “On the third day and Abraham looked up” (Gen. 22, 4), meaning: ‘He rose early on the third day and looked up and saw the place from afar’. …
Kimḥi thus offers us the choice between Ibn Ezra’s solution and a third possibility that alters the division of the verses. See also Abrabanel Sect. 2.15.2.1 note 908.
418.
Translated after the text of Miqra’ot Gedolot, Haketer, based on the few available manuscripts (see there Vol. I, 13). The text in Kemelhar (1970) is occasionally slightly different.
419.
The expression lekh le-kha, with the preposition le, has many parallels. This passage is absent in ed. Kemelhar.
420.
Note that the first reason is Midrash inspired, whereas the second has a more general theological nature.
421.
See above Sect. 1.2.3.12: The role of Sarah.
422.
See above note 417.
423.
In II Chronicles (where MT reads be -har ha-Moriyya) Scripture itself identifies the ‘place’ as a mountain. The Midrash reference seems to apply only to what follows.
424.
A reference to the list of ‘things created at the dusk of the first Sabbath’; see Appendix II and *26*. The rabbinic sources usually read: ‘Also the ram of our father Abraham.’ Kemelhar merely reads: ‘This is the saying of the Sages: Also the ram’ (as in Sifre and Pes. 54a), but Kimḥi’s quotation explicitly relates the ram to Isaac; cp. *26d*.
425.
A variant reading adds: ‘And it says: “On the mountain the Lord will see,” because He will be seen on that same mountain by all future generations.’
426.
This description also appears in Sefer ha-Shorashim (ed. Biesenthal/Lebrecht, s.v. sha‛ar) in very similar wording. And see Ibn Ezra’s short remark in Sect. 2.2.3.
427.
As in Gen. 12, 3; 18, 18; 28, 14.
428.
In Sefer ha-Shorashim (ed. Biesenthal/Lebrecht, s.v. ‛eqev) and esp. in the commentary on Ps. 19, 12 the wording is similar. See Ibn Ezra’s short remark, above Sect. 2.2.3; Jonah Ibn Janaḥ (Bacher, 382) mentions both ‘reward’ (gemul) and ‘end’ as meanings of the root ‘qb but doesn’t make the connection in the way Kimḥi does.
429.
Note how Kimḥi implicitly rejects the various Midrashic solutions (as Ibn Ezra did); cp. *31*.
430.
Cp. Rashi Sect. 2.3.3vs.19, and see Appendix III.
431.
See S. Klein-Braslavy in: HBOT I/2 (2000), 311–320, 302–303 (bibliography); M.Z. Cohen, Three Approaches to Biblical Metaphor (2003), with detailed subject index. Further e.g. W. Bacher, Die Bibelexegese Moses Maimûni’s (Strassburg i. E. 1897). J.I. Dienstag, “Biblical Exegesis of Maimonides in Jewish Scholarship” in: G. Appel (ed.), S.K. Mirsky Memorial Volume (New York 1970), 151–190. Sh. Rosenberg, “‛Al parshanut ha-Miqra be-sefer ha-More” in: Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 1 (1) (1981), 85–157. On his influence e.g. J.T. Robinson, “We drink only from the Master’s Water: Maimonides and Maimonideanism in Southern France, 1200–1306” in: Studia Rosenthaliana 40 (2007–2008), 27–60.
432.
L. Straus, “How to begin to study the Guide of the Perplexed” in: Pines’ translation of the Guide, xiii.
433.
The slogan Dibbera Tora ki-leshon bene adam (Ber. 31b and many parallels) originally meant to declare the essential normality of biblical language. Maimonides made it the expression of the arcane nature of the biblical message (Mishneh Torah, H. Yesode ha-Tora I, 12); cp. above Sect. 1.4.2.
434.
H. Kreisel, Prophecy, 211. A. Ravitzky, “The secrets of Maimonides: Between the thirteenth and the twentieth centuries” in: History and Faith (Amsterdam 1996), 246–303.
435.
On the analysis of Guide III, 24 especially: J.A. Diamond, Maimonides and the Hermeneutics of Concealment (New York 2002), 131–150: “Chapter III, 24 of the Guide: “Trial” – The Bridge between Metaphysics and Law”; Diamond treats the subject within the broader fabric of the Guide and firmly taps into its esoteric character; for earlier literature see there 198–199 and ix-x; also S. Feldman, “The Binding of Isaac …”, esp. 109–112; A. Even Chen, ‘Aqedat-Yiṣḥaq be-farshanut ha-misṭit we-ha-filosofit shel ha-Miqra (Tel Aviv 2006), 32–56.
436.
In this chapter all quotations from the Guide have been taken (sometimes with slight adaptations) from Sh. Pines’ translation of the Arabic original The Guide of the Perplexed (Chicago 1963); my own translation of Guide III, 24 given below Sect. 2.7.5. is from the Hebrew of Samuel Ibn Tibbon.
437.
Guide III, 17 (Pines, 471).
438.
Not included here is Ex. 15, 25: “There He/he made for him a statute and judgment (ḥoq u-mishpaṭ) and there He/he tried him.” Diamond (see note 4) argues (147–149) that these teachings belong to a utopian stage in the promulgation of the Law and are better omitted in III, 24. He also remarks (138) that all essential elements of the six verses—manna, ram and written Torah—are represented in the list of things created at dusk (Avot V, 6; *26a*; below Appendix II) and detects here an esoteric statement on the nature of miracles.
439.
The reference to Ex. 31, 13 is very clever; here la-da‛at indeed means ‘that people should know’, but it occurs without nissa! For the other examples, where nissa is indeed connected with yada‘, we have to bear in mind that in Arabic the implied subject of infinitives is not necessarily identical with the subject of the governing verb, as it usually is in Hebrew.
440.
As e.g. in Dt. 8, 16: “He might try you out, to do you good (le-heṭivkha) in the end.”
441.
For the persistent interference of nes – ‘banner, mast’ (*2b*) see A. van der Heide, “Banner, Miracle, Trial?” (2001) and Appendix IV. Even the verb naśa’ – ‘to elevate’ still lingers (Ibn Ezra Sect. 2.2.3vs.1); Index A, vs. 1: “tried”.
442.
Above Sect. 2.6.2: ‘Now it is very difficult to apply the concept of trial to God. For He searches the heart and understands the reins, so He knew that Abraham would obey His command.’
443.
Above Sect. 2.2.2.3 and below Judah ha-Levi Sect. 2.13.1. For Naḥmanides’ very outspoken view that trial increases reward see below Sect. 2.8.1.1.
444.
Ibn Ezra Sect. 2.2.2.3 and Saadya Sect. 2.1.3 note 21. Saadya translated ‛arraftu al-nās, in the 2nd stem with object, and this is what bothered Ibn Ezra (although he did not use linguistic arguments) and Kimḥi in their commentaries on vs. 1. See also R.-P. Schmitz, Aqedat Jiṣḥaq (1979), 46, 82–87 and Sh. Rosenberg (1981), 103–104 (note 22 there). Rashi in fact implies the very same solution; see Sect. 2.3.2.5 note 107.
445.
Maimonides has a similar reasoning with respect to Deut. 8, 2. As mentioned (above note 439), the problem is less obvious to ears attuned to Arabic.
446.
Diamond, 144–145, gives an explanation for the somewhat curious distribution of the concepts ‘love’ and ‘fear’ in our chapter.
447.
A concise description of Maimonides’ views on prophecy gives H.A. Davidson, Moses Maimonides, 371–373. H. Kreisel, Prophecy, Ch. III, esp. 210–311 gives a detailed analysis of Maimonides’ formal discussion in Guide II, 32–48: 221–289; on our chapter III, 24: 295–297, and see next note. See also A.J. Reines, Maimonides and Abrabanel on Prophecy (Cincinnati 1970) and A. Even Chen, ‘Aqedat-Yiṣḥaq (2006), 39–47.
448.
Cp. Guide II, 46 (404): ‘In the case of prophetic parables seen or enacted ‘in a vision of prophecy’ … (these actions and things done by the prophet) … are not real actions, actions that exist for the external senses.’ See also Kreisel, 265, 284–285 who connects this question with the purportedly esoteric character of the Guide. Diamond, 147 confidently, and without reference to these passages, denies Maimonides’ appreciation of the Aqedah as an actual historical event. Even Chen, ‘Aqedat Yiṣḥaq, resolutely aims at proving exactly this point and is not concerned with Maimonides’ exegesis of Genesis 22 in Guide III, 24. Relating to several elements of Maimonidean thought he describes the Master’s conception of the meaning of the Aqedah and concludes that according to him the whole episode happened only in Abraham’s mind. Having first in his imagination erroneously interpreted the order to sacrifice Isaac as a divine command, Abraham three days later gained the insight that he should not do so.
449.
See below Sect. 2.15.3{67}–{69}: ‘I became too anguished to hear, too frightened to see (cp. Is. 21, 3) that Jewish scholars should write such heresy and ascribe such a reprehensible opinion to the Master, something so far from his real intentions.’ Joseph ibn Kaspi in Gevia‘ Kesef, ch. 18 mentions the issue in passing (below at note 569); Arama treats it in ch. 19 of his ‘Aqedat Yiṣḥaq and refuses to accept the idea (see below Sect. 2.14.2.2 note 804).
450.
Y. Ibn Shmuel (ed.), 455–460; the subdivisions within the text are ours.
451.
Namely Dt. 8, 16; see note 440 above.
452.
E.g. H. Yesode ha-Tora VIII, 3: ‘When therefore a prophet will stand up with signs and great miracles and will try to contradict the prophecy of our Master Moses, he should not be obeyed and we can be certain that these miracles are done by magic and witchcraft. For the prophecy of our Master Moses did not depend on the miracles and we should not compare his miracles to those of another. But with our own eyes we saw and with our ears we heard the same that he himself heard (at Mount Sinai).’
453.
More on Naḥmanides can be found in EJ2, vol. 14, 739–748 (with updated bibliography); on his biblical exegesis Y. Elman in HBOT I/2, 416–432; innovative for the study of Naḥmanides was the volume edited by I. Twersky in 1983; see e.g. his “Introduction”, 1–10. D. Novak, The Theology of Nahmanides Systematically Presented (Atlanta 1993). Ch. D (B.) Chavel edited Naḥmanides’ works and (for the greater part) translated them into English; see the Bibliography.
454.
See B. Septimus, “’Open Rebuke and Concealed Love’: Naḥmanides and the Andalusian Tradition” in: I. Twersky (ed.), Rabbi Moses Naḥmanides (Ramban) (Cambridge, Mass. 1983), 11–34.
455.
D.J. Silver, Maimonidean Criticism and the Maimonidean Controversy 1180–1240 (Leiden 1965), 166–175.
456.
We will see, for example, that Joseph Albo’s ideas on the Aqedah are primarily those of Naḥmanides; also the ‘Be’ur’ that accompanied Moses Mendelssohn’s Bible translation relies heavily on him; see below Sects. 2.13.5.2 and 2.16.2.
457.
Chavel (1959), 3, 7; Chavel (1971), 9, 13–15. ‘Omnisignificance’; see Elman in HBOT, 419–420.
458.
Chavel (1959) 7–8; Chavel (1971), 15–16.
459.
Already Judah ha-Levi, in the context of a discussion on free will and divine providence, applied the transition from potentiality into actuality to Abraham’s trial: ‘”And God proved Abraham”, in order to render his theoretical obedience practical, and let it be the cause of his prosperity’; see below Sect. 2.13.1.
460.
In Dt. 8, 2, a very similar verse that Maimonides included in his discussion (as he did with vs. 16 of that chapter), Naḥmanides does little more than referring to what he said already on Ex. 16, 4 (in vs. 16 there is no mention of the trial); see the translation below Sect. 2.8.2.2 Exodus 16, 4.
461.
Le-ma‛an yenasse la-da‛at, instead of le-ma‛an anassennu of the Bible text.
462.
Our translation of Naḥmanides’ exegesis of this verse below Sect. 2.8.2.2 includes the passage preceding the one treated here. It describes a subtle difference with Rashi. Apparently for Rashi the correct behaviour towards the manna is symbolical for obedience to the whole of the commandments, whereas Naḥmanides takes the manna event as the essence of this trial.
463.
As in the verse just treated, here too Naḥmanides had to distance himself from a tradition *2b* recorded by Rashi, namely that the verb nissa is related to nes – ‘banner, mast’.
464.
Which Maimonides perceived in Dt. 8, 16, not treated by Naḥmanides. And see Appendix IV.
465.
Related but comparatively insignificant is Naḥmanides treatment of Dt. 13, 4, a text which Maimonides included into his six key passages (“You must not heed the words of that (false) prophet or of him who dreams dreams; for the Lord your God tries you to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul”), where he repeats ‘that the trial is called that way for the benefit of the one who is tried. It says “to know”, namely to know in actuality (be-fo‛al) what is potentially present and cognized by Him.’
466.
Note that Naḥmanides, no doubt on purpose, conflates the terms ṣaddiq and ḥasid.
467.
In his commentary on Job 1, 8–9 (Chavel (1963), Kitve I, 30) Naḥmanides formulates the issue as follows: ‘“Have you considered My servant Job?” God wanted to try this righteous one and allowed Satan to accuse him, as a king may do with his servants, only that this trial is for the good, as is the case with all trials with which God confronts His faithful ones in the Torah or in the Prophets, as I explained when dealing with Recompense. “Does Job fear God for nothing?” This tells us that the reward of a man who serves his God for gain or success is not the same as the reward of him who serves in a situation of pain and distress.’
468.
Implied e.g. by the wordplay on nissa – ‘to try’ and nes – ‘banner’. *2b* etc.
469.
For an attempt to probe the deeper levels of the difference of opinion between Maimonides and Naḥmanides see A. van der Heide, “Maimonides and Nahmanides on the Concept of Trial (‘nissayon’)” in: Jesus Pelaez del Rosal (ed.), Sobre la Vida y Obra de Maimonides (Cordoba [1991]), esp. 311–314.
470.
Such as an emphasis on the metaphorical meaning of the myrrh; a hint to the mythical character of ‘the’ altar; *21* mora – ‘fear’ as an alternative to hora’a.
471.
See Baḥya on the same passage Sect. 2.9.4vs.13 and Baḥya’s remark on Gen. 48, 15: ‘This blessing contains an allusion to the Ten Sefirot’, etc.). It is curious that Chavel (1971) omits the passage from his translation of Naḥmanides’ commentary. On Naḥmanides and the Kabbalah see M. Idel, “We have no Kabbalistic Tradition on This” in: I. Twersky (ed.), Rabbi Moses Naḥmanides (Ramban) (Cambridge, Mass. 1983), 51–74.
472.
Chavel (⁹1976) I, 125–127; transl. Chavel (1971-’76) I, 275–279. A critical text based on manuscripts in Miqra’ot Gedolot, Haketer I (1997); see there Haqdama, 13.
473.
Variant reading: the world. The Great Sanhedrin resided on the Temple Mount and issued its rulings from there.
474.
Our texts read here ar‛ā pulḥana; see above Sect. 2.3.2.4 note 101.
475.
Cp. PT Peah VII, 4; fol. 20a end.
476.
Variant reading: the land (ha-areṣ); so the region is named after the mountain within it.
477.
Middot II, 5: ‘The North-Eastern (chamber of the Temple court for women) was the Chamber of the Wood, where blemished priests examined the wood for worms. All wood that had a worm in it was unfit for the altar.’
478.
See above Sect. 2.8.1.3 at note 471.
479.
Cp. Gen. 15, 5 and 13, 16.
480.
Chavel (⁹1976) I, 363–364.
481.
The Hebrew wording of this quotation follows Judah Al-Ḥarizi’s translation (Schlossberg, 250); Ibn Tibbon has here, in translation: ‘“That I may try them whether they will walk in my Torah or not” (Ex. 16, 4), by which is meant that everyone who will examine this (she-yivḥon ba-ze kol boḥen), will find out whether it is worthwhile and sufficient to be devoted to His service or not.’
482.
Le-ma‛an yenasse la-da‛at, instead of le-ma‛an anassennu of the Bible text.
483.
Chavel (⁹1976) II, 380–381.
484.
Chavel (⁹1976) I, 407–408.
485.
I.e. on Mount Sinai; so in Al-Ḥarizi.
486.
The Hebrew wording is in line with Al-Ḥarizi’s translation (Schlossberg, 250), but with variants and omissions. Ibn Tibbon can be translated as follows: ‘Fear not, for this great spectacle that you have seen was meant only to offer you the truth by sight. When God will try you by a false prophet proclaiming the opposite of what you just heard, then—to make known the measure (shi‛ur) of your belief—you will be firm in your belief and your foot will not stumble.’ See Chavel’s note (⁹1976 I, 407) on the difficult notion that God should on purpose send a false prophet to His people.
487.
Chavel (⁹1976) I, 406.
488.
Chavel (1963) II, 273–274; transl. Chavel (1978) II, 444–448.
489.
Some more examples follow: King Hezekiah’s sufferings (as told in e.g. II Chr. 32, 24–26. 31) did not really belong to this kind of trial; they were punishment for his evil deeds. And when the Israelites eventually did not drive out the inhabitants of the promised land (Judges 2, 22–23), they failed in this test.
490.
For the little that is known about Baḥya ben Asher see e.g. E. Gottlieb in EJ2, 3, 65–66 and the Hebrew introduction to Chavel’s edition of his works (1968).
491.
On the origin and history of the term, which essentially seems to go back Moses de León, the ‘author’ of the Zohar, see A. van der Heide, “PARDES” (1983); a summary and more literature in M. Idel, HBOT I/2, 457–459 and his Absorbing Perfections (New Haven & London 2002), 429–437 (Appendix I).
492.
Chavel (1968), 5.
493.
See E. Gottlieb, Ha-Qabbala be-khitve R. Baḥya ben Asher (Jerusalem 1970); B. Bernstein, Die Schrifterklärung des Bachja ben Ascher (Berlin 1891).
494.
Chavel (1968), 4–5. In fact, Baḥya rather inconspicuously adds a fifth ‘way’ to the four just mentioned, namely ethics (derekh ha-musar): ‘And in order that my book should contain Study and Virtues (Tora u-Middot), I will begin each chapter with a verse of that wonderful book … the Proverbs of Solomon, son of David’ (Ibid., 6).
495.
Translation based on the text in Chavel (1968); for the elucidation of details and sources see the full translation below Sect. 2.9.4. Another example of the combination of exegetical ‘methods’ is found in 2.9.4vs.13 on the lemma “After” (aḥar).
496.
For Naḥmanides see above Sect. 2.8.1.3 (esp. at note 471). Sources and details of the following quotation are given in the translation below Sect. 2.9.4. Baḥya gives more kabbalistic references at vs. 2 (note 513), vs. 9 (‘the altar’), vs. 13 (notes 528, 534).
497.
Cp. GenR 38, 13 (361–364).
498.
Chavel (⁴1976–1977) I, 192–199.
499.
The first half of what follows is actually not midrashic and its source is unknown; it manipulates the meaning of nissa into ‘to punish’, similar to what we find in Rashbam etc.
500.
In Gen. 40, 6: “When Josef came to (the baker and the cup bearer) in the morning, he saw that they were zo‛afim (RSV: ‘sad’; NEB: ‘dejected’; JPS: ‘distraught’).”
501.
Sic! Aramaic nesis, nesisin: Jastrow: ‘evil’ (noun and adjective; more shades of meaning added); Sokoloff: ‘weak’.
502.
Cp. I Sam. 6 and 7.
503.
Hebrew divrati can be explained as ‘guidance’; cp. Naḥmanides’ commentary, a.l. (Chavel (1963) I, 40).
504.
Cp. Sota 10a-b; for the quotation see e.g. ARN A 7 (applied to Job) and Midrash Tehillim 110 (fol. 233a; see note 3 there).
505.
Cp. GenR 54, 5, which reads more plausibly akhila-shetiyya-lewaya; Chavel (1968), a.l. note 31 discusses the variants. Eshel is usually translated as ‘tamarisk’.
506.
See the well-known legend in GenR 38, 13 (361–364) and parallels; cp. also Appendix I.
507.
Cp. Avot V, 18/21: ‘At five years old (one is fit) for the Scriptures, at ten for the Mishnah …, at forty for discernment…’
508.
See Appendix III.
509.
Actually the quotation is a variant of TanḥB Wa-Yera 46 *15* and cp. *2a*.
510.
See Appendix I.
511.
Cp. PT Peah 7, 4 and *7*; also Naḥmanides above Sect. 2.8.2.1 at note 475.
512.
Here in the construct: ara’ pulḥana; see Sect. 2.3.2.4 note 101. Note that our texts of Naḥmanides read ar‛ā pulḥana – ‘the land Worship’; see Sect. 2.8.2.1 note 474.
513.
I.e. in the realm of the Sefirot.
514.
Middot II, 5: ‘The North-Eastern (chamber of the Temple court for women) was the Chamber of the Wood, where blemished priests examined the wood for worms. All wood that had a worm in it was unfit for the altar.’
515.
Passage quoted or inserted from Naḥmanides, a.l.
516.
Cp. GenR 55, 8 end (594).
517.
After the affair of the Golden Calf (Ex. 32–33) Joshua spent forty years with the people in the desert and 14 years with capturing and allotting the land Israel to the tribes (cp. Seder Olam, 11; Weinstock, 177–178; Milikowsky, 254–255; Mekhilta de R.Y Wa-Yassa‛ 5, 173; Zevaḥim 11b), before he died at 110 (Josh. 24, 29).
518.
A very rare argument; see Index A.
519.
GenR 56, 4 (598–599) *19c* has a few extra elements, but the last words of this quotation do not occur there.
520.
Sof ha-binyan: probably the lowest Sefirah Malkhut.
521.
In his commentary on Lev. 1, 9 (Chavel, ⁴1976–1977, 401): “The priest shall turn the whole into smoke on the altar (ha-mizbeḥa)” Baḥya gives a kabbalistic, symbolical explanation of the function of the sacrificial altar and of the he added here to the word mizbeaḥ.
522.
Aggadat Bereshit 31 (p. 62); TanḥB Wa-Yera 41 (fol. 55a; without the name of R. Ḥanina).
523.
Referring to Isaiah’s vision of God and His throne.
524.
The following passage is, with some omissions and variants, based on the latter part of Tanḥ Wa-Yera 23 (fol. 30b-31a).
525.
PesRK 6, 4 (p. 120; and cp. PesR. 16, fol. 84a):

(Two yearling) lambs (without a blemish)” (Num. 28, 3). The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel. The House of Shammai said: (They are called) lambs (kevasim), because they suppress (koveshim) the iniquities of Israel, as it is said: “He will take us back in mercy, He will suppress our iniquities” (Micha 7, 19). The House of Hillel said: Kevasim, because they cleanse (kovesim/mekhabbesim) the iniquities of Israel, as it is said: “Be your sins like crimson, they can turn snow-white” (Is. 1, 18). Etc.
526.
Cp. Parah I, 3.
527.
Cp. Ps. 22, 20: “Oh Lord, … my strength (eyaluti), hasten to my aid.”
528.
The sefirotic symbolism of this passage is reminiscent of Zohar III, fol. 21b:

Rabbi Ḥiyya began to quote: “For the leader, on ‘the Hind of Dawn’; a Psalm of David” (Ps. 22, 1). Who is ‘the Hind of Dawn’? That is the Community of Israel, which is also called “hind of love” and “graceful doe” (cp. Prov. 5, 19). Is she a hind at dawn only and not all day long? No, this refers to the hind from a place called ‘Dawn’, as it is written: “His (the Lord’s) outpouring is as steadfast as dawn” (Hosea 6, 3).

Community of Israel (Keneset Yisra’el) is, like Divine Presence (Shekhina), a standard synonym for the lowest Sefirah Malkhut.
529.
Keves; Baḥya just explained that the ram must have been a lamb.
530.
One of the buildings of Solomon’s palace and temple complex.
531.
Wolves are supposed to live in forests. Note that Onkelos renders Gen. 49, 27 as: “In Benjamin’s land the Shekhinah will dwell and on his property the Sanctuary will be built.” Other hints to the Shekhina’s preference for the region of the tribe of Benjamin can be found e.g. in Zevaḥim 54b and 118b.
532.
Cp. Makkot 23b-24a: R. Simlai explained: 613 commandments were said to Moses … R. Hamnuna said: What is the scriptural basis for this? “Moses commanded us Torah, as a heritage” (Dt. 33, 4). ‘Torah’ has a numerical value of 311, for we heard “I am (the Lord your God)” and “Thou shalt not have” (Ex. 20, 2–3) out of the mouth of the Power (Himself).
533.
From the piyyuṭ ‘Anenu H’ ‘anenu (Goldschmidt, Maḥzor …, II, 54; Davidson, Thesaurus …‘ayin 830).
534.
I.e. the Sefirot; ‘cutting the shoots’ is a common metaphor for heresy, based on the Pardes parable of T. Ḥag. II, 3; Ḥag. 14b.
535.
I.e. the Angel is God. The name Elohim is usually associated with the Sefirah Gevura/Din, although Baḥya seems to follow another track here.
536.
Vs. 17: “I will certainly bless you (barekh avarekhekha).”
537.
Above Sect. 2.3.3, with slight variations.
538.
Note that this passage is not extant in Naḥmanides’ works known today.
539.
Cp. vs. 10 and *35c*.
540.
See above Tosafists Sect. 2.5.2.14 and GenR 56, 10 (607–608) quoted there in note 220.
541.
Not handed down in the extant sources.
542.
Fol. 59b: Arya de-ve ‛illay, usually: ‘the lion from Be-Ilay’ (a forest or locality); another possibility: ‘the lion of the Most High’; a frightful animal whose appearance is too much for humans to endure.
543.
‘Will see’ (yir’e) has the same four Hebrew letters as ‘lion’ (arye).
544.
GenR 56, 10 (608) with slight variations; cp. Sifre, pisqa 352 (p. 410).
545.
B. Mesch, Studies in Joseph Ibn Caspi, Fourteenth-Century Philosopher and Exegete (Leiden 1975). I. Twersky, “Joseph ibn Kaspi: Portrait of a Medieval Jewish Intellectual” in: Studies in Medieval Jewish History and Literature (Cambridge, Mass. and London 1979), 231–257. B. Herring, Joseph Ibn Kaspi’s Gevia‛ Kesef. A Study in Medieval Jewish Philosophic Bible Commentary (New York 1982), especially 1–122: ‘Part I: Joseph Ibn Kaspi: An Introduction’. Earlier studies are by W. Bacher, “Joseph ibn Kaspi als Bibelerklärer” and “Aus der Bibelexegese Joseph Ibn Kaspi’s” from the year 1912 (see Bibliography), and B. Finkelscherer, Die Sprachwissenschaft des Josef Ibn Kaspi (Göttingen 1930). For more see e.g. H. Kasher at plato.stanford.edu/entries/kaspi-joseph.
546.
Entitled Sefer ha-Musar; text and translation in I. Abrahams, Hebrew Ethical Wills (Philadelphia 1976), 127–161.
547.
Herring, 14–20, mentions 30 titles, almost all fashioned after the Hebrew family name of the man from Argentière; nine of them are not extant and four others (or rather 3½) remained in manuscript. Kaspi’s modern editor is primarily Isaac Last, who brought out Zehn Schriften des Josef Ibn Kaspi/‘Asara Kele Kesef I-II (Pressburg 1903); Zwei Schriften des Josef Ibn Kaspi/Mishne Kesef I (Pressburg 1905); II (Cracow 1906; reprinted in a volume of Oṣar Perushim la-Tora, s.l.s.a.); Adne Keseph I-II (London 1911); Acht Abhandlungen/Tam ha-Kesef, Shemone derashot ‘al ‘inyanim shonim (London 1913). Mesch (note 1), 7–42 translated the two versions of Qevuṣat Kesef. For more details see Bibliography: Joseph Ibn Kaspi; H. Kasher.
548.
Edited, together with Ṭirat Kesef, by Last in Zwei Schriften/Mishne Kesef.
549.
Text in Last, Mishne Kesef/Zwei Schriften II. On the book see Kaspi’s Qevuṣat Kesef, the ‘autobibliography’ which is extant in two versions; Last, ‘Asara Kele Kesef/Zehn Schriften I, xx-xxiv edited the Munich MS; Mesch, 7–42, translated the Munich and Parma MSS. The passage on Maṣref la-Kesef: Last, xxii-xxiii; Mesch, 29.
550.
Last, Mishne Kesef/Zwei Schriften, 62–63.
551.
Text in Last, Mishne Kesef/Zwei Schriften I. On the book see Herring, 126; in Qevuṣat Kesef: Last, xxii; Mesch, 11–12.
552.
Kaspi treats the same subject in approximately the same words in the fourth derush of his Tam ha-Kesef (Last, 23–24), translated below in note 586.
553.
It would be interesting to consult here Kaspi’s dictionary of Hebrew roots Sharshot Kesef, but neither the fragments published by Last in 1909 nor C. Aslanov’s 2001 analysis of its Provençal glosses offer sufficient information (for details see the Bibliography).
554.
Gevia‘ Kesef, ch. 18; below Sect. 2.10.2.3 on Gevia‘ Kesef, Chapter 18.
555.
Twersky, “Joseph ibn Kaspi”, 238–242; Herring, 57–63.
556.
Guide I, 54, the chapter that explains that God’s attributes as enumerated in Ex. 33 are pure attributes of action, meant to induce human beings to behave accordingly. ‘For the utmost virtue is to become like unto Him…; which means that we make our actions like unto His’ (Pines, 128).
557.
On the book in general Herring, 125–132; B. Herring edited Gevia‘ Kesef on the basis of two (of the three extant) manuscripts with a translation and commentary. It was overlooked by Last; Mesch quotes it from a manuscript.
558.
Herring, 5 (Hebrew), 135 (translation); Last, ‘Asara Kele Kesef/Zehn Schriften I, xxiii; Mesch, 26.
559.
Herring, 127 gives a list of the topics.
560.
In “Le sacrifice d’Isaac dans le Gebia Kesef …”, Pardès 22 (1996), 69–82 R. Goetschel especially highlights Kaspi’s ‘double lecture’ of the story of Isaac’s sacrifice in this chapter, a literal one for the masses, and an allegorical one for an élite striving for spiritual perfection.
561.
For easy reference we numbered the sections of our translation.
562.
Herring, 13 (Hebrew), 159 (translation).
563.
Herring, 77–97 (Chapter 3: The names of God in Scripture) argues that Kaspi distanced himself from Maimonides’ and Ibn Ezra’s philosophical interpretations of the divine names and took the tetragrammaton to indicate God as the uppermost part of the world of the Separate Intelligencies, whereas Elohim refers to the world of the heavenly Spheres. In a different terminological frame one might say that for Kaspi YHWH and its derivatives denote the transcendence of God, Elohim stands for His immanence. The realities of the biblical text however forced him to differentiate this view in various ways.
564.
The question whether God can be taken ‘to change His mind’ is treated in greater detail by e.g. Gersonides, below Sect. 2.12.2.1.
565.
As did Herring in his translation (232, note 85), with the remark that Kaspi in fact might have been not so very sure of Abraham’s unfailing belief in the message of his earlier visions.
566.
Gen. 12, 1.7; 15, passim; 17, 1.3; 18, 17.
567.
Kaspi remarks that the oath ‘refers to the vision between the Pieces’, i.e. the dramatic manifestation of God’s presence described in Gen. 15, 9–17 and granted to Abram as the confirmation of His promise. This may convey the idea that the oath specifically confirms the covenant made between God and Abram as distinct from the promise of blessings and offspring.
568.
See Herring, 128–129.
569.
See above Maimonides 2.7.4.1 esp. note 449.
570.
Last, Zwei Schriften, 62–63.
571.
Maṣref la-Kesef on Gen. 12, 1 (Last, 45): ‘The meaning of “That I will show you” is that not everything is explained at once. Such is the beginning of each prophecy. Every insight (‛iyyun) is at first more indefinite than later ones, and that what is counter to the senses always steadily increases. Be always aware of this. The intention becomes clearer with “(Go not down into Egypt; dwell) in the land that I will tell you. Sojourn in this land” (Gen. 26, 2–3). Thus it is also written: “On one of the mountains that I will tell you” (Gen. 22, 2) and then “He stood up and went to the place that God had told him” (vs. 3).
572.
This text is difficult. King James Version: “They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine’s flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the LORD.” JPS Tanakh: “…to enter the groves, imitating one in the center, eating the flesh of swine… (etc.).”
573.
Obviously, the original may have a very different meaning; in his commentary on Prov. 24, 22 (Last, ‘Asara Kele Kesef/Zehn Schriften, 113) Kaspi explicitly makes the connection with Muslim polygamy.
574.
The legendary supreme council of Jewish sages of the early Second Temple period.
575.
Sefer ha-Haṭa‘’a is the Hebrew name for Aristotle’s Sophistical Refutations (or one of its commentaries). It is also the title of the 6^th part of Kaspi’s Ṣeror ha-Kesef, listing all possible kinds of misunderstanding; see Sh. Rosenberg, “Sefer ha-Haṭa‘’a le-R. Yosef Ibn Kaspi” in: Iyyun 32 (1983-’84), 275–295, esp. e.g. 281.
576.
The reference to Ṭirat Kesef is not identifiable, but in the Gevia‘ Kesef the two ‘because’-clauses are indeed differentiated; see below Sect. 2.10.3.3 Gevia‘ Kesef, Chapter 14{35} and Index A.
577.
See above Sect. 2.5.3.2 Various vs.19; 2.5.3.3vs.19.
578.
Last, Zwei Schriften, 46–47.
579.
Guide I, 54, the chapter that explains that God’s attributes as enumerated in Ex. 33 are pure attributes of action, meant to induce human beings to behave accordingly. ‘For the utmost virtue is to become like unto Him…; which means that we make our actions like unto His’ (Pines, 128).
580.
Hash’alot, also ‘metaphors’.
581.
So that (vs. 15) “At the end of ten days it was observed that (the four young men) appeared better and fatter than all the young men who had been eating of he royal rations.”
582.
The verse is not completely perspicuous; New RSV and JPS translate: “God looked upon the Israelites and God took notice of them.”
583.
From the range of proof texts in Guide III, 24.
584.
Be-heqqesh massa’i; Heschel, Dictionary: ‘categoric conclusion, sentence’; Last added here a note with an equally elusive variant reading.
585.
The texts quoted have the expression hinne na – ‘behold, now’; the interjection na is traditionally explained as meaning ‘now’ (e.g. Kimḥi 6.3vs.2 and Shorashim, a.l.). Kaspi, Maṣref la-Kesef on Gen. 12, 11 explains that it is very unlikely that Abraham discovered at that moment that he had a beautiful wife, just as Lot (in Gen. 19, 7) knew long before that he had two daughters. See also below Albo Sect. 2.13.5.3 note 741.
586.
Tam ha-Kesef, the fourth Derush (Last, 23–24): ‘My explanation of the fourth subject of this book is devoted to the concept of trial. In my opinion Maimonides, who devoted a special chapter to the subject, proposed strange explications that have no grammatical basis in the sayings of the Sages except by giving a general idea for the majority [?]. Why should I describe here at length an opinion that can be looked up in his book? The same is true for the sage Ibn Ezra who wrote on this at “That God tried Abraham” (Gen. 22, 1) and whose opinion can also be looked up in his book. We will do nothing else in this book but write down what seems probable to us, and God will make the choice. In my opinion the idea of trial by God has no other meaning than the other references applied to Him, God forbid. It is the same as with “the Lord regretted” and “it grieved Him” (Gen. 6, 6). Why should I claim for myself what previous scholars, such as Maimonides and Ibn Ezra, have already proposed? Maimonides (Guide I, 26) admitted this on the basis of the rabbinic dictum ‘the Torah speaks the language of man’. For he who says to his friend; ‘Go, kill that person!’ and then sees that he indeed attacks him so that he has to say to him: ‘Do not stretch out your hand!’ – such a proceeding is nothing else than an attempt to test his friend whether he is ready to do all he commands him to do. Moses could have refrained form writing about the deluge that “the Lord regretted”. But he did so only to make the listeners understand and to give them some idea. He did the same when writing about the Binding “That God tried Abraham”. What difference is there between the two, or between all other metaphors (ha‘avarot) applied to God! For all of them the solution is: ‘The Torah speaks the language of men.’ For me every expression for ‘trial by God’ falls into this same category, namely: ‘The Torah speaks the language of men.’
587.
Hebrew text of chapter 14: Herring, 28–34; translation: 217–235. Kaspi’s Hebrew is not the most limpid of medieval Jewish texts. Although most grateful for Herrings insights and expertise in Kaspi’s work, we decided to offer a new translation, along with a numbering of sections.
588.
Naḥmanides (Commentary on Lev. 27, 29; Chavel, 193 and note 28; translation, 481) quotes, and vehemently rejects Ibn Ezra’s view that Jephthah intended from the beginning that the sacrifice of his daughter should merely consist of a separation from society: ‘If that which comes forth of the doors of my house be a man or a woman, that person shall be holy to God … in prayer and thanksgiving; but if he be something fit for an offering, I will make it a burnt-offering.’ Ibn Ezra left no commentary on the Book of Judges. Kaspi’s contemporary Gersonides also thought that the girl should merely not marry (commentary on Judges 11, 31 as printed in the Miqra’ot Gedolot).
589.
Ḥasid shoṭe: one of the kinds of hypocrites mentioned in Sotah III, 4.
590.
In fact, two victories are mentioned: II Kings 11, 33 over Moab; 12, 4 over Gilead.
591.
The ‘problem’ is that the girl should rather bewail her life than her virginity and the loss of sexual satisfaction. But like her friends, Jephthah’s daughter was foolish and arrogant. For Deborah and Huldah see Meg. 14b: ‘R. Naḥman said: Ambition (yehiruta) is not becoming to women. There were two ambitious women and their names were repulsive. One name was ‘bee’ (zibburta), the other name was ‘weasel’ (karkushta).’ Rashi identified them as Deborah and Huldah because of their casual behavior towards Barak (Judges 4, 6) and Josiah (II Kings 22, 15); Miriam’s arrogance is mentioned in the well-known passage Num. 12, 2 ff.
592.
Wordplay with ohev and oyev.
593.
According to BB 14b it was Samuel.
594.
Cp. Amos 2, 4.6: “For three transgressions of Judah/Israel…”
595.
Guide III, 32 (Pines, 527–528), summarized above: God’s ‘ruse’ to allow sacrifices—but only when brought to Him—is comparable with His command to the people of Israel to travel through the desert in order to experience its hardships.
596.
See Gevia‘ Kesef, ch. VI (e.g. Herring, Hebrew 14, translation 161.)
597.
Herring, 226 note 57 detected an inconsistency in Kaspi’s interpretation of this verse.
598.
Herring, 227 note 58: ‘An act done unwillingly, but whose end-product is desirable;’ he refers here to the Pseudo-Aristotelian Problemata XXII, 931b, 19–38.
599.
Guide II, 43 (Pines, 392–393) where Maimonides detects the same basic meaning in the stems ḥbl and bḥl. ‘Through this method very strange things appear, which are likewise ‘secrets’.’
600.
For ḥovelim see preceding note; ḥashmal, also mentioned there, is one of the mysterious terms from Ezekiel’s vision.
601.
Tanḥ. Be-reshit, 1; cp. PT Sheq. VI, 1 end, fol. 49d.
602.
Prov. 25, 11; Guide, Introduction; Pines, 11–12.
603.
Maimonides wrote of the three days as time for reflection: ‘But doing it days after the commandment had reached him is a sign of deliberation and reflection on the true intention of His commandment as well as on the fear and love of Him’ (Guide III, 24; above Sect. 2.7.5{11}).
604.
The idea is, probably, that there is no specification of the time that elapsed during their travels “together” to Beth-El, Jericho and the Jordan; II Kings 2, 1–16.
605.
The use of ha-na‘ar (vss. 5 and 12) may imply that Kaspi did not take Isaac to be 37 years old, but see Sect. 2.9.4 note 517.
606.
Iḥur, rather the prevention of the sacrifice.
607.
See above note 563.
608.
Or: According to his (Abraham’s) status? (le-fi ‘inyano).
609.
Conjecture; the manuscript simply repeats the preceding phrase; see above note 565.
610.
The Levites now became His special servants, although earlier the firstborn held that privilege; cp. Ex. 13, 2.
611.
Guide III, 45; Pines, 575–576: ‘The fact that this place (Mount Moriah) is not stated explicitly … but only hinted at … is due in my opinion to three wise considerations. … The third, and it is the strongest, lest every tribe should demand that this place should be within its allotted portion.’ The Arabic original has the Hebrew naḥala.
612.
I.e.: it is allowed, not commanded. Cp. Sifra 2, 4 (Finkelstein II, 21): ‘”A man might sacrifice” (Lev. 1, 2). Could that be a commandment (gezera): “might sacrifice’? No, it is merely voluntary (reshut).’
613.
We distinguished sakhar – ‘reward’, peras – ‘fee’, gemul – ‘recompense’.
614.
For this reference to Gen. 15 see above note 567.
615.
From: Herring, Hebrew: 39–40, translation: 254–258.
616.
See above in this section at note 568.
617.
A book now lost. The ‘secret’ of Josh. 2, 7 is that the pursuers of the Israelite spies in Jericho merely thought that they pursued them while in reality the spies stayed in hiding with Rahab. The observation that Scripture does not express the true state of affairs here but merely what the pursuers assumed to be true is already implied by Rashi and explicitly formulated by Kimḥi (le-fi maḥshavtam). In his Adne Kesef (Last, 2) Kaspi takes this over. Ibn Ezra is reputed to have applied this observation to the present discussion.
618.
Probably because of the pi’el of nissa – ‘tried’, taken as a causative.
619.
The name God (Elohim) denotes the divine immanence and the ways in which the divinity can be perceived by the human senses; see above note 563.
620.
Riḥuq and qeruv ha-koaḥ.
621.
In Jer. 35, 2 (on the Rechabites; see Sect. 2.2.1 note 58) the verb is a consecutive perfect with the meaning of an imperative, but Kaspi conveniently takes it as a simple perfect.
622.
As described by Herring, 49–51, for Kaspi certain potentials can be described as already inhering in the present, and speech confers a measure of existence upon that of which it speaks. As if, by telling the meaning of dreams Joseph had caused their outcome, and the eventual destruction of villages and houses was, in a sense, already realized by Jeremiah’s words alone.
623.
L.A. Feldman, ‘Nissim ben Reuben Gerondi’ in: EJ, 12, cols. 1185–1186; EJ2, 15, 280–281; see also the Introduction to the Commentary. A number of Talmudical novellae published under the acronym Ra”N are clearly not written by our Nissim. Feldman also published a commentary with distinct theological features attributed to ‘a pupil of Rabbenu Nissim’ covering Genesis 25-Exodus 40 (Jerusalem 1970).
624.
L.A. Feldman (ed.), Rabbenu Nissim ben Re’uven Gerondi (Ha-Ra”N), Perush ‘al ha-Torah (Jerusalem 1968); with an extensive Introduction.
625.
L.A. Feldman (ed.), Derashot ha-Ra”N. Y”B derashot le-Rabbenu Nissim ben Re’uven Gerondi (Jerusalem 1977), with an extensive Introduction. The collection was well known from its first edition (Constantinople 1533?) onwards; for Joseph Dan (EJ, 5, cols. 1549–1550; EJ2, 5, 591–592) ‘there is nothing in the homilies themselves to identify the author.’
626.
In the Derashot, 100 we find the same two basic positions, with some elucidation but without the names of Maimonides and Naḥmanides: ‘There are two kinds of trial, either a trial for the benefit of the individual who is tried, or for the benefit of humanity as a whole’ (below Sect. 2.11.3.2{1}).
627.
As in the standard case I Sam. 17, 39: “Then he tried to walk, but he was not used to it (ki lo nissa). And David said to Saul: I cannot walk in these, for I am not used to them (ki lo nissiti).” See Appendix IV, 1.
628.
In the Derashot Sect. 2.11.3.2{2} we find the same emphasis on the supplicatory character of vs. 2.
629.
Here Nissim explicitly refers to Naḥmanides’ preoccupation with the sacrificial wood in vs. 3.
630.
Ibn Ezra Sect. 2.3.3vs.5: ‘For then it would be fitting that Isaac’s righteousness had been made manifest and that his reward were twice the reward of his father, because he willingly submitted himself to the slaughtering.’
631.
See *19* and *21b*. When Satan tried to prevent the sacrifice he not only accosted Abraham *1a*, but tried to warn off Isaac as well: GenR 56, 4 (598–599); TanḥB Wa-Yera 46 (fol. 57b); Tanḥ Wa-Yera 22 (fol. 30a); PesR 40 (fol. 170b); and see above Sect. 1.2.3: Satan’s involvement; The role of Isaac.
632.
*25*: ‘“Don’t do anything (me’uma) to him”, not even a blemish (mumma).’ Abrabanel Sect. 2.15.3{77} elaborates the dual purpose of the angel’s appeal even more.
633.
From the Scroll of Secrets (Megillat Setarim) of Rabbi Jonah Gerondi, a book that left little traces and which we failed to identify. Of the two aspects mentioned here one is negative towards God (a critical reply), the other positive (a plea to be spared). On R. Jonah see below Sect. 2.13.3.1.
634.
Above Sect. 2.8.2.1.
635.
We find the statement of Maimonides’ two principles, with the addition of Nissim’s principle of the belief in immortality also in the Derashot Sect. 2.11.3.2{4}, with omission of the names.
636.
L.A. Feldman (ed.), Perush ‘al ha-Torah, 279–290.
637.
This translation of ‘im ma she-haya bo min ha-qoshi he-‘aṣum is doubtful.
638.
Namely: the perfection of Abraham and his suitability for an extreme form of trial.
639.
Ke-mesim ha-Shem be-fiw.
640.
See below in the Derashot Sect. 2.11.3.2{2}.
641.
See below in the Derashot Sect. 2.11.3.2{3}.
642.
Gersonides’ ‘third Lesson’ Sect. 2.12.3.3{3}.
643.
Middot II, 5: ‘All wood that had a worm in it was unfit for the altar.’ See above Naḥmanides Sect. 2.8.2.1 note 477.
644.
On Gen. 21, 8.
645.
Ibn Ezra; see above note 630.
646.
See Index A, s.v. “will see”.
647.
See above note 631.
648.
‘Anything’, me’umma, understood as mum(ma) – ‘mark, blemish’. *25*
649.
See above note 633.
650.
See Sect. 2.8.2.1.
651.
See below in the Derashot Sect. 2.11.3.2{4}.
652.
L.A. Feldman (ed.), 100–101 {1}, 105–106 {2–4}.
653.
Perhaps we may infer that only the third aspect of the trial, as explained in the commentary on vs. 1, applies here: training and exercise.
654.
Tentative translation.
655.
For primary information and literature on Gersonides see e.g. Tamar Rudavsky at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/gersonides/
656.
A. Funkenstein, “Gersonides’ Biblical Commentary: Science, History and Providence (or: The Importance of Being Boring)” in: G. Freudenthal (ed.), Studies on Gersonides, a fourteenth-century Jewish Philosopher-Scientist (Leiden 1992), 305–315; Funkenstein typifies our philosopher-exegete as a ‘dogmatic rationalist’. S. Feldman, “Gersonides and Biblical Exegesis” in: Idem (transl.), Levi ben Gershom (Gersonides) The Wars of the Lord, Vol. 2 (Philadelphia 1987), Appendix: 213–247.
657.
This method was later adopted—and adapted—by Isaac Arama and Isaac Abrabanel; Baḥya too made a division of his own according to the Four Senses; see above Sect. 2.9.1.
658.
Haberman, Dani’el Bombergi, no. 196; reprint in Oṣar Perushim la-Tora (s. l. s. a.). Earlier editions had appeared already in Mantua 1475/6 and Pesaro 1514. The to‛aliyyot were printed separately several times, first in Riva di Trento 1560.
659.
E. Freyman, “Le commentaire sur le pentateuque de Gersonide: Éditions et manuscrits” in: G. Dahan (ed.), Gersonide en son temps. Science et philosophie médiévales (Louvain 1991), 117–132; Freyman (p. 129) mentions a number of about 35 manuscripts containing (parts of) one or the other recension.
660.
Our translation follows the text of Miqra’ot Gedolot, Haketer (based on a choice of 5 mss.; see Bereshit I, 14). We also consulted the copy from the Ets Haim Library of Amsterdam that Freyman mentioned (p. 127), annotated (in all probability) by David Franco Mendes (shelf mark 2 C 5). J.L. Levi’s 1992 edition is a mixed edition based on Venice 1547 with readings and variants from a number of manuscripts from the Manfred Lehman collection.
661.
Numbers was completed on 13 December 1337 and Deuteronomy already on 15 January 1388 (23 Ṭevet and 23 Shevaṭ of the year 5098).
662.
The possibility of a dubious prophecy is implied by Maimonides’ description of the prophetic process as, e.g., in Mishneh Torah, H. Yesode ha-Tora VII, 6; ‘All prophets, what they see is a puzzling allegory (mashal we-ḥida)…. (They prophesy) in fear and fright and intense emotion (mitmogegim); but not so our master Moses.’ The notion is also expressed in e.g. LevR 1, 14: ‘What difference is there between Moses and all other prophets?… The Rabbis said: All other prophets beheld (prophetic vision) in a blurred mirror… but Moses in a polished mirror.’ Gersonides’ views on prophecy differed from those of Maimonides in several details; see e.g Wars II, 8 (Feldman, 72–73, Synopsis 15–23).
663.
S. Feldman, “The Binding of Isaac: A Test-Case of Divine Foreknowledge” in: T. Rudavsky (ed.), Divine Omniscience and Omnipotence in Medieval Philosophy: Islamic, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives (Dordrecht, etc. 1984), 105–133.
664.
S. Feldman (transl.), Levi ben Gershom (Gersonides) The Wars of the Lord, Vol. 2: Book two: Dreams, divination, and prophecy; Book three: Divine knowledge; Book four: Divine providence (Philadelphia 1987), 27–37 and 11 (Synopsis).
665.
Feldman, Ibid., 174–205 and 81–85 (Synopsis). The subject is much debated in the literature; a convenient summary of Gersonides views can be found in EJ2, 12, 700.
666.
Apart from the passage at the beginning of our chapter Gersonides also treated the freedom of man to change his behaviour in the explanation of Gen. 18, 21, esp. Lesson 16 there.
667.
See below note 672.
668.
Gen. 32, 11(10) “I (Jacob) am not worthy of the least of all the mercies, and of all the truth, that You have shown to Your servant.” Gersonides: ‘”The mercies.” These are the good things that the Lord did for him and that He promised him. “The truth.” Those are the promises of good things that He realised for him, as we explained in the preceding.’ Probably the reasoning here is that ‘mercy’ (ḥesed) denotes God’s promise as a matter of divine grace; the promise becomes ‘truth’ (emet) after man has proven to be worthy of it by cooperating and doing his share; see also Lesson 34 of the preceding pericope. Gersonides makes similar remarks on Gen. 24, 27: “Blessed be the Lord… Who did not forsake His mercy and truth.”
669.
As Ishmael and Eliezer; see *14b*.
670.
This earned him the disapproval of Ḥasdai Crescas; see Sect. 2.13.4.3 Or ha-Shem II, 2, 4 note 726.
671.
Variant readings call Lessons three and six ‘Lessons on matters of Torah’ (ba-‛inyanim ha-toriyyim).
672.
We translated from the Miqra’ot Gedolot, Haketer, Bereshit I (1997), 193–199, 233–234; variants in the Venice 1547 edition (and the Levi (1992) edition (L) and the Ets Haim (EH) copy) may be read as witnesses of Gersonides’ revisions; see above note 660.
673.
Venice 1547: sheni. See above at notes 664 and 665.
674.
Mi-pa’t ha-‛elyonim, which includes astrology.
675.
Venice 1547: we-amar se; EH: omnam amar lo.
676.
Yomar; Venice 1547: amar.
677.
E.g. in the third Lesson of second portion Noaḥ.
678.
See above note 668.
679.
Yimna‛; Venice 1547: yimne.
680.
She-haya reṣono; L: she-kiwwen reṣono – ‘he was resolved’.
681.
Ha-muvan mimmennu le-fi ha-nahug bo; L and EH: ha-muvan mimmennu rishona – ‘first and foremost’.
682.
Ha-‛inyan; L and EH: ha-ma’amar – ‘message’.
683.
L: we-laqaḥ et ha-‘ayil.
684.
Le-fi ha-lashon u-le-fi ha-‘emet.
685.
Rabbim; L and EH: shemona – ‘eight’.
686.
Ba-middot; L and EH: ba-‛inyanim ha-Toriyyim – ‘on matters of Torah’.
687.
Idem.
688.
Doubtful: ma she-lo ye‛alem.
689.
See above at note 668.
690.
L and EH: ba-shelishi – ‘in the third (book)’; but see above note 673, etc.
691.
Hirschfeld, 336–353; transl., 278–290; Baneth/Ben-Shammai, 216–225.
692.
Hirschfeld, 342/343: min al-quwwa ilā al-fi‘l; (Ibn Tibbon: le-hoṣi ‘avodato min ha-koaḥ el ha-po‘al); transl., 282–283; Baneth/Ben-Shammai, 219.
693.
See P. Fenton in HBOT I/2, 433 (bibliography), 434–441.
694.
E.Y. Wiesenberg (ed.), Perush Rabbenu Avraham ben ha-Rambam z”l ‘al Bereshit u-Shemot, ha-maqor ha-‘Aravi muggah, mesuddar u-meturgam li-lh”q be-tosefet mavo we-he‘arot (London 1958); from Genesis the portions 1,1–1, 27 and 2, 17–20,16 are lacking.
695.
See Sect. 2.7.4 for Moses Maimonides’ view on the levels of prophecy.
696.
Fenton, 438.
697.
Wiesenberg, 46–51.
698.
Wiesenberg mistakenly refers to GenR 56, 11; cp. 58, 5; but see e.g. *1c*, *21b*.
699.
In fact we do not find this evaluation of Isaac’s role in Maimonides’ treatment of the Aqedah.
700.
Reconstructed reading.
701.
In the halakhic sense of being present in the Temple in order to bring a sacrifice.
702.
Onkelos gives a literal translation of these verses; Wiesenberg, note 26, quotes a Targum Onkelos reading that translates as ‘Before the Lord the generations will worship here.’
703.
See above Sect. 2.1.2 note 13.
704.
Sh. Yerushalmi (ed.), Sefer derashot u-ferushe rabbenu Yona Gerondi la-Ḥamishsha Ḥumshe Tora (Jerusalem 1980). British Library, MS Add. 27,292; Margoliouth, II, 6 (nr. 346). On R. Jonah see A.T. Shrock, Jonah ben Abraham of Gerona. His Life and Ethical Works (London 1948). See also above Sect. 2.11.2 at note 633.
705.
See Sect. 2.5.2.14; also in Baḥya Sect. 2.9.4 at note 540.
706.
Yerushalmi, 39–40.
707.
Parashat Lekh lekha, Yerushalmi, 29.
708.
For a comprehensible text we have omitted ella; perhaps read: we-lo.
709.
For facts and literature see Sh. Sadik’s entry at plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/crescas/. In general Z. Harvey, R. Ḥasdai Crescas (Jerusalem 2010). For Or ha-Shem we used the edition by Sh. Fisher (Jerusalem 1990).
710.
M. Kellner, Dogma in Medieval Jewish Thought (Oxford 1986), 108–139.
711.
Unlike Ibn Ezra (above Sect. 2.2.2.1), Crescas refuses to connect the verse with Gen. 18, 21 as an arcane reference to the nature of God’s knowledge.
712.
Admittedly Crescas’ treatment of divine knowledge, comprising the five chapters of II, 1, is too complex to be discussed here in its own right. See S. Feldman, “The Binding of Isaac: A Test-Case of Divine Foreknowledge” in: T. Rudavsky (ed.), Divine Omniscience and Omnipotence (Dordrecht, etc. 1984), 105–133, esp. 116–123.
713.
This Aristotelian principle will be fully developed by Arama; see Sect. 2.14.2.3. Here again the scheme of the actualisation of potentials is active; see Index B: potential/actual.
714.
Feldman, 122–123 illustrates this specific kind of knowledge by the amply attested timelessness of the perfect of biblical yada‘. Abrabanel Sect. 2.15.3{26}{79} made this point explicit. On the timelessness of yada‘in the perfect tense (as illustrated e.g. in Gen. 12, 11) see Kaspi (Sect. 2.10.3.2 note 585) and, later, Albo (2.13.5.3 par. 27) and Abrabanel Sect. 2.15.2.1 at note 926.
715.
Bi-veḥinato; one wonders whether we should not read bi-veḥinatenu – ‘with respect to us’.
716.
Reference to the daily sacrifices in this context is rare, but see the sources quoted above Sect. 1.3.1.1 and Index B: daily sacrifice.
717.
D.Y. Lasker (ed.), R. Ḥasdai Qresqas, Sefer biṭṭul ‘iqqere ha-noṣrim be-targumo shel Yosef ben Shem Tov (Ramat Gan/Beer Sheva 1990); D.J. Lasker, The Refutation of the Christian Principles by Hasdai Crescas (Albany 1992).
718.
Lasker, Biṭṭul …, 42; Lasker, Refutation …, 32.
719.
Lasker, Biṭṭul …, 87; Refutation…, 76.
720.
Above Sects. 2.11 and 2.13.3; below Sect. 2.15.2.1 note 907.
721.
See e.g. below Sects. 2.15.2.3 and 2.15.3{2}{38}. Crescas probably wrote yet another polemical work based on exegetical arguments, which is now lost; Lasker, Biṭṭul …, 12; Refutation…, 2.
722.
Fisher, 125–126.
723.
Maimonides may have held the notion that the Aqedah was merely a dream and that the story did not really take place, but there is plenty reason to assume that he held the second prophetic revelation by the Angel to be superior to Abraham’s vision at night; see above Sect. 2.7.4.
724.
Fisher, 167–168.
725.
See above Sect. 2.7.3.
726.
Gersonides (R. Levi ben Gershom): ‘Thus perfection was transmitted to the Patriarchs to become worthy of an offspring that has the Lord for their God and that will inherit the gate of their enemies and in which all peoples of the world will be blessed.’ See above Sects. 2.12.2.2 note 670 and 2.12.3.2 towards the end.
727.
Fisher, 171–175.
728.
There is some correspondence here with the Crescas quotation given in the Anonymous homily, below Sect. 2.13.6.2{16}, but in the present context these words hardly seem to advocate the preference of martyrdom over apostasy; see below Sect. 2.13.6.1 notes 753 and 754. Scholars detected in Crescas’ report of the death of his (then) only son during the persecutions of 1391 in Barcelona (Beinart, Gezerot, 20–22; Harvey, R. Ḥasdai Crescas, 22–24) an allusion to this view on the Aqedah: ‘Many sanctified the Name, among them my only son, newly wed, an innocent lamb, whom I offered as a burnt-offering’ (ben yeḥidi ḥatan śe tamim he‘elitiw le-‘ola); an interesting observation, unfit for conclusions.
729.
Sefer ha-Peri: Ptolemy’s Centriloquium in Kalonymos ben Kalonymos’ Hebrew translation; see Steinschneider, Übersetzungen…, 529–530 (par. 327).
730.
See above Sect. 1.3.1.1.
731.
I. Husik, Sefer Ha-ʿIkkarim: Book of Principles/Joseph Albo; critically edited on the basis of manuscripts and old editions and provided with a translation and notes (Philadelphia 1929–1930).
732.
Chapter III, 25 (Husik III, 217–245), Albo’s vindication of the Law of Moses, is a well-known exception, possibly based on a real discussion; the chapter appears in severely mutilated form in the traditional editions.
733.
It is believed that Part I of Sefer ha-‘Iqqarim was an earlier version of the work as a whole. For Albo’s well-known and much discussed dogmatic system see e.g. M. Kellner, Dogma in Medieval Jewish Thought (Oxford 1986), 140–156.
734.
In fact Part IV contains no less than 51 chapters. After the ‘sufferings of love’ it treats various biblical passages in which punishment and repentance are mentioned, and then Ch. 29 ‘begins the discussion of reward and punishment, which is the third Principle’ (Husik I, 29). In Sefer ha-‘Iqqarim consistency is not an absolute value.
735.
Above Sect. 2.8.1.1.
736.
One of the shades of meaning of the biblical nissa; see Appendix IV.
737.
In relation to Dt. 8, 16: ‘It says that He first accustomed you (le-hargilkhem) to the trouble of the desert’; see above Sect. 2.7.5{9}.
738.
In essence we followed Husik’s translation and section division (IV, 123–131) with slight adaptions to the style of the other translations in this book.
739.
Not so in Guide III, 24; neither do the summaries of Ex. 20, 17/20 and Dt. 13, 4. For ‘habituation’ as in Dt. 8, 16 see above at note 737.
740.
Vs. 16: “And you have seen their detestable things, and their idols, wood and stone, silver and gold, which were with them.”
741.
Abraham knew long before that he had a beautiful wife, but at that moment he realised the consequences. Joseph Ibn Kaspi used the same argument; see above Sect. 2.10.3.2 note 585.
742.
In IV, 18 (Husik IV, 119) Albo also mentions ‘the opinion held by the Geonim, who say that a person may suffer for no sin at all’. So e.g. in Saadya’s Beliefs and Opinions V, 3 (Rosenblatt, 213).
743.
Above Sect. 1.4.3.8.
744.
Vinograd, Thesaurus, Salonica, no. 33.
745.
M. Saperstein, “A Sermon on the ‘Aqedah from the Generation of the Expulsion and Its Implications for 1391” in: Idem, “Your Voice Like a Ram’s Horn.” Themes and Texts in Jewish Preaching (Cincinnati 1996), 251–292.
746.
Shem Tov ben Joseph Ibn Shem Tov is best known for his commentary on Maimonides’ Guide, which is printed in the traditional editions; apart from his collection of sermons he also wrote a commentary on Avot and a number of philosophical works. Saperstein, Jewish Preaching, 180–198 translated his sermon on the weekly portion Wa-Yeḥi.
747.
Saperstein, 256–257; see in general his Jewish Preaching…, 63–79; contemporary Hebrew terminology distinguished nośe’ – the opening verse (from the Torah lesson), ma’amar – aggadic passage, and derush – the topic to be discussed. An alternative element, also known from biblical commentaries and prominent in e.g. Arama and Abrabanel, was the safeq or she’ela – the ‘question’; see below Sect. 2.14.1 note 781.
748.
Arama chose the same ma’amar for his sermon 21; see below Sect. 2.14.2. For the enduring attraction of nes see A. van der Heide, “Banner, Miracle, Trial? …”, passim. As noted, in Bereshit Rabba the setting of this passage is also a sermon, a classical proem.
749.
For easy reference we divided the text of the sermon into numbered sections.
750.
The parallelism in vs. 16 “Because you have done this thing” followed by “and have not withheld your only son” can, for a Midrash oriented mind, be taken to suggest that Abraham first reacted negatively: ‘I haven’t done anything, so far’. ‘Yes, you did: You have not withheld…’ etc.
751.
Saperstein (“A Sermon…”, 285) found this notion of a double ‘binding’ also in a derasha by Shem Tov Ibn Shem Tov (Derashot ha-Tora, Saloniki 1525, 80c). The reference to the daily sacrifice made in that context (and again in {19}) is also quite rare, but see above Sect. 1.3.1.1. Crescas (Or ha-Shem II, 2, 6; see Sect. 2.13.4.2 note 716) also makes the connection; and see Index B: daily sacrifice.
752.
See above Sect. 2.12.2.
753.
Saperstein, “A Sermon…,” 272, did find an in my eyes questionable reference to this view in Or ha-Shem II, 2, 6 (above Sect. 2.13.4.3). This induced him (261–264) to connected the issue to ‘the powerful internal polemics’ on martyrdom and apostasy raging in those days, and to the dramatic facts of Crescas’ own life. In his famous letter on the persecutions of 1391 Crescas remarkably said about the death of his only son during the riots in Barcelona that he (himself?) offered this innocent lamb as a burnt-offering (see above note 728). Saperstein, 265 detected faint echoes of this debate in the Aqedah exegesis of Arama (see below Sect. 2.14.2.4 note 832; 14.3{80}) and Abrabanel (see Sect. 2.15.3 note 976) as well.
754.
As the anonymous author remarked: ‘Many killed their children and grandchildren, and then their wives and finally themselves, to sanctify the Name in public.’{6} These radical sentiments remind the modern student of Jewish history vividly of the martyrs of the 12th century crusades in Northern Europe; see above Sect. 1.3.1.3. Most probably there is no historical connection with the Rhineland.; Saperstein, 258–261. For 1391 and Crescas’ active participation in the events see Y. Baer, A History.., II, 95ff.; Z. Harvey, R. Ḥasdai Crescas, 22–30.
755.
This translation in substance follows Saperstein’s expert rendering (pp. 266–279), but for a few adaptations in tune with its present context; I gratefully acknowledge his consent as well as the Hebrew Union College Press’ gracious reprint permission.
756.
A reconstructed reading; see Saperstein, 256 note 11.
757.
The reading of this passage, the so-called ma’amar, differs from its source in Bereshit Rabba 55, 1 and is very close to the one given by Arama Sect. 2.14.3{1}.
758.
Just as the parallelism in vs. 16 can be read as a complementary statement ({12}, and above note 750), so vs. 12 assumedly speaks of two distinct things: ‘you are God-fearing and you have not withheld your son.’
759.
A passage from the Musaf prayers for Rosh ha-Shanah; see above Sect. 1.3.1.1 note 36.
760.
The rest of {7} is a quotation from Ibn Tibbon’s translation of Guide III, 24 (above Sect. 2.7.5), here in Saperstein’s translation. The passage contains a few variants; see Saperstein, 283; Ibn Shmuel, 458.
761.
E.g. Mishneh Torah, H. Yesode ha-Tora II, 2; IV, 12.
762.
Also Baḥya Sect. 2.9.4vs.1 end.
763.
The text is questionable; see Saperstein, notes 17 (translation), 35 (text). And cp. Abrabanel Sect. 2.15.3{83}.
764.
Vss. 16, 17 and 18.
765.
The Hebrew abbreviation bm”h preceded by the active verb she-’amar invites a translation such as ‘as the author (ba‘al) of m”h says’. Saperstein, 273 translates ‘as the Midrash ha-Gadol said’ and refers to ed. Margulies I, 78 on Gen. 2, 7, where both Moriah and ‘the place of his atonement’ are indeed mentioned. Since, however, it is doubtful whether our author could have known the Midrash ha-Gadol, the numerous parallels also enable us to read e.g. bi-meqomot harbe.
766.
E.g. GenR 14, 8 (132); PRE 20 (fol. 45b-46a; Friedlander, 143).
767.
Cp. Sifre par. 29 (Finkelstein, 47); Ber. 30a.
768.
Cp. GenR 56, 10 (608); Midrash Tehillim 76, 3 (Buber, 341–342).
769.
Cp. PesRK 5, 17 (Mandelbaum, 106–107); and see above note 751.
770.
Z. Gottlieb (ed.), Be’ur ‛al ha-Tora le-rabbi ‛Obadya Sforno … (Jerusalem 1980), preceded by an extensive Introduction.
771.
Abrabanel Sect. 2.15.3{80} offers an argument for this linguistically dubious statement.
772.
Gottlieb, 55–56; a translation in L. Jacobs, Jewish Biblical Exegesis (New York 1973), 134–136.
773.
Tacit intentions should be realised by deeds.
774.
Variant reading: ‘given’.
775.
Arama’s gives his full name the general Introduction (Haqdamat ha-meḥabber) to ‛Aqedat Yiṣḥaq (vol. I, fols. 1a-3a), together with some information on his life and the purpose of his book. See also the preceding “Toldot rabbenu Yiṣḥaq ben ‘Arama” by the editor Ch.J. Pollack; I. Bettan’s study of “The Sermons of Isaac Arama” in: HUCA 12/13 (1937-‘38), 583–634 has been incorporated in his Studies in Jewish Preaching (1939), 130–191; see especially 586/134.
776.
First published Saloniki 1522; edited, together with Ḥazut Qasha and the commentaries on the Five Scrolls, by Ch.J. Pollack in five volumes with a commentary called Meqor Ḥayyim (Pressburg 1849; reprint Jerusalem 1961). Is. Freimann (ed.), Yad Avshalom (Commentary on Proverbs) (Leipzig 1859). Monographs on Arama have been written by S. Heller-Wilensky (1956) and Ch. Pearl (1971).
777.
B. Septimus, “Yitzhak Arama and Aristotle’s Ethics” (note 784 below), 4*–11* revised the earlier analyses of opposition between orthodoxy and ‘Averroism’ as made by e.g. Y. Baer, A History of the Jews in Christian Spain II, 253–259.
778.
The relevant fragment of the introduction on the purpose of ‛Aqedat Yiṣḥaq is translated in M. Saperstein, Jewish Preaching 1200–1800. An Anthology (New Haven and London 1989), 392–393.
779.
For examples of allegorical Midrash in our chapter see the translation below where the ass (ḥamor) is taken to allude to matter (ḥomer) {58}, and Arama’s ‘theology’ {74}–{75} of the ten things created at the twilight of the first Sabbath *26a*; see also note 815.
780.
Pollack, ‛Aqedat Yiṣḥaq, General Introduction, fol. 2a.
781.
On the origin and development of this exegetical technique, also exploited by Gersonides and, especially, by Abrabanel, see M. Saperstein, “The Method of Doubts. Problematizing the Bible in Late Medieval Jewish Exegesis” in: J.D. McAuliffe, a.o. (eds.), With Reverence for the Word. Medieval Scriptural Exegesis in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (Oxford 2003), 133–156.
782.
Bettan, “The Sermons…”, 589 (note 13 there)/Studies…, 137 (note 13), observed that these 105 chapters in fact contain 117 different sermons.
783.
It is, therefore, not without trepidation that we, as called for by the format of this book, included a complete translation of Arama’s chapter on Genesis 22.
784.
Arama quotes it in the Hebrew translation by Meir Alguadez, edited as Sefer ha-Middot by J. Satanov (Lemberg 1867). Cp. Steinschneider, Übersetzungen, 209–212 (§ 110), 214–215; and see below note 805. B. Septimus, “Yitzhak Arama and Aristotle’s Ethics” in: Y.T. Asis/Y. Kaplan (eds.), Dor Gerush Sefarad: Qoveṣ Ma’amarim (Jerusalem 1999), 1*-24*. The report (a.o. by Bettan, 586 note 3/134 note 3) that Arama occasionally mentions a commentary on the Nicomachean Ethics of his own is contradicted by Septimus, note 48. For more references to Arama’s sources see Bettan, ad loc.
785.
In the orthodox world it still belongs to the classics, as witnessed, e.g., by a publication like Akeydat Yitzchak: Commentary of Yitzchak Arama on the Torah, translated and condensed by Eliyahu Munk in 2 vols. (Jerusalem/New York 2001).
786.
The ‘four causes’ are usually traced back to Aristotle’s Physics II, 3. Having been mentioned by Maimonides, Guide I, 69 (Pines, 167: ‘matter, form, efficient cause, end’; Ibn Shmuel, 144: ḥomer, ṣura, po‘el, takhlit), they serve many purposes in medieval Hebrew letters and as a stock theme make numerous appearances.
787.
Pollack I, 148a-165b. A partial summary (Haqdama and first Preamble) is given by Bettan, “The Sermons…”, 596–599/Studies …, 145–149.
788.
The so-called ma’amar; see above Sect. 2.13.6 note 748.
789.
Pollack I, fols. 148a-151a.
790.
S. Feldman, “The Binding of Isaac…”, finished his survey of divine foreknowledge and Aqedah exegesis with Arama (123–128) and concluded that his extensive discussion is a rather standard one that does not move significantly from the position taken already by Maimonides in the Guide III, 16–21. See on this subject also Heller-Wilensky, Ch. 7 and Pearl, Ch. 5.
791.
For easier reference we divided Arama’s Chapter 21 into numbered sections.
792.
We saw that Abraham Ibn Ezra, probably, and David Kimḥi applied these categories to Abraham’s relation to God after the trial; see above Sects. 2.2.2.2 and 2.6.2.
793.
Hit‘aṣmut and the verb n/hit‘aṣṣem, used repeatedly below and in combination with hishtallem – ‘to be perfected’. Cp. Guide I, 1 where Pines, 22, translates (the Arabic): ‘the notion in virtue of which a thing is constituted as a substance and becomes what it is.’ Cp. I. Efros, Philosophical Terms in the Moreh Nebukim (New York 1924) s.v.: ‘to be substantialized or actualized, i.e. to receive a form which constitutes the substance or the essence.’
794.
Arama refers to a concise enumeration of these arguments in Guide III, 17; see below note 838.
795.
See Feldman, “Foreknowledge…’, 125.
796.
Al-Ghazali, The incoherence of the philosophers, 134–143: ‘[Thirteenth] Discussion: On refuting their statement that God, …, does not know the particulars divisible in terms of temporal division into what is, what was, and what will be.’ Note that Arama’s examples of the predictability of an eclipse, the fact that a prophet’s mission (here Mohammed’s) has to be known to God, and the irrelevance of something being to the left or to the right also figure in Al-Ghazali’s ‘Discussion’. A Hebrew translation of the ‘Incoherence’, called Happalat ha-Filosofim by Zeraḥya ben Isaac ha-Levi (ca. 1400; see EJ 16, 997/EJ2 21, 515; Steinschneider, Übersetzungen… § 184–185) apparently still remains in manuscript.
797.
See above note 793.
798.
Guide I, 52–53; Al-Ghazali, 96–109: The Sixth Discussion on the divine attributes.
799.
Feldman, “Foreknowledge…”, 127–128 gives a slightly different translation of this ‘novel and puzzling’ conclusion, with an evaluation of its philosophical implications.
800.
As Arama announced in his general Introduction (fol. 2a), he occasionally includes haṣṣa‘ot – ‘preambles, explanations’ devoted to the discussion of specific topics.
801.
This distinction is in line with the spiritual career of Abraham as Arama saw it; cp. Septimus, “Yitzhaq Arama and Aristotle’s Ethics”, 23* note 95.
802.
The modern reader is reminded here of the Christian phrase ‘Credo quia absurdum’ or of the view of Isaac’s sacrifice as propounded in S. Kierkegaard’s Frygt og Bæven (‘Fear and Trembling’) of 1848.
803.
See below Sect. 2.14.3{20}. Arama will return to this in the sixth Question{65}{66}.
804.
Maimonides’ definition of prophecy as occurring ‘in a dream or a vision’ (Guide II, 44–45) raised the question whether the story of Abraham’s offering wasn’t merely a dream; see above Sect. 2.7.4.1. Abrabanel discussed this point at length; see 2.15.2.1; 2.15.3{67}-{69}. Chapter Nineteen of ‛Aqedat Yiṣḥaq, to which Arama repeatedly refers, is headed (Pollack I, fol. 134a): ‘The difference between prophecy as conceived by some philosophers and as taught by theologians (medabberim toraniyyim) explained. Gersonides’ view of God’s foreknowledge refuted. Who and what induced some of our scholars to decide that all that is told merely happened in a prophetic vision? The things of which this is correctly said explained.’ On fol. 137a Arama maintains that the biblical stories of prophecy—such as the appearance of the three ‘men’ at Mamre and the Aqedah—really happened and were not merely dreamt. See also below {13} and {67}.
805.
Arama’s great appreciation of Aristotle’s Ethics is indicative of his views on the value of philosophy for the interpretation of the Jewish tradition for his contemporaries; see above Sect. 2.14.1 and note 784. The passages in question can be found in Sefer ha-Middot, ed. J. Satanow, fol. 15a, beginning of Ch. II, 3. They correspond with the original Aristotle, The Nicomachian Ethics, II, i, 3; II, iv, 1 and 3:

(i, 3) The virtues therefore are engendered in us neither by nature nor yet in violation of nature; nature gives us the capacity to receive them, and this capacity is brought to maturity by habit.

(iv, 1) A difficulty may however be raised as to what we mean by saying that in order to become just men must do just actions, and in order to become temperate they must do temperate actions. For if they do just and temperate actions, they are just and temperate already, just as, if they spell correctly or play in tune, they are scholars (grammatikoi) or musicians....

(iv, 3) Moreover the case of the arts is not really analogous to that of the virtues. Works of art have their merit in themselves, so that it is enough if they are produced having a certain quality of their own; but acts done in conformity with the virtues are not done justly or temperately if they themselves are of a certain sort, but only if the agent is also in a certain state of mind when he does them: first he must act with knowledge; secondly he must deliberately choose to act, and choose it for its own sake; and thirdly the act must spring from a fixed and permanent disposition of character.
806.
On the Questions see above note 781.
807.
Aristotle, The Nicomachian Ethics, VIII, vi, 2: ‘It is not possible to have many friends in the full meaning of the word friendship, any more than it is to be in love with many people at once (love indeed seems to be an excessive state of emotion, such as is naturally felt towards one person only).’
IX, x, 5: ‘Perhaps therefore it is a good rule not to seek to have as many friends as possible, but only as many as are enough to form a circle of associates. Indeed it would appear to be impossible to be very friendly with many people, for the same reason as it is impossible to be in love with several people.’
808.
Namely: ‘love’ and ‘only one’.
809.
See sources *6c* and *15*; Guide III, 24 (after Ibn Tibbon): ‘He consented to slaughter him after a journey of days. For had He wanted him to do it on the very moment that the commandment reached him, it would have been a deed of panic without reflection. But doing it days after the commandment had reached him is a sign of deliberation and reflection on the true intention of His commandment as well as on the fear and love of Him’ (above Sect. 2.7.5{11}; cp. Pines, 501).
810.
Jonah (Abu ‘l-Walid) ibn Janaḥ, the younger contemporary of the famous trail-blazing grammarian Judah Ḥayyuj who established the principle of triliterality, lived around 1040 and published, in Arabic, the first complete description of biblical Hebrew, Kitāb al-Tanqiḥ; it consists of a grammar, Kitāb al-Luma‛ (Hebrew Sefer ha-Riqma) and a dictionary, Kitāb al-Uṣūl (Hebrew Sefer ha-Shorashim); they were translated into Hebrew by Judah ibn Tibbon. See also Appendix IV, 3.
811.
According to the story in Jeremiah, the sons of Rechab had vowed to dwell in tents and never to drink wine. Cp. Ibn Ezra 2.2.3 note 58; Abrabanel 2.15.2.1 note 919; 2.15.3{71}.
812.
Possibly an allusion to the Muslim claim that the Jews had falsified their Scriptures by introducing changes in the text, taḥrif in Arabic, hamara in Hebrew. See also Saadya Sect. 2.1.3 at note 23.
813.
M. Wilensky (ed.), Sefer ha-Riqma…, 58–59 (from Chapter Six, on the uses and meanings of several prepositions). Abrabanel Sect. 2.15.2.1 at note 918 will invoke the same passage.
814.
Translation uncertain.
815.
Although attributed here to ‘the Sages’, this obviously medieval pun cannot readily be traced in classical Rabbinic literature. The sources quoted in Tora Shlema III, vol. 4 (New York 1954), 875, note 57 are either very implicit or late. Abrabanel Sects. 2.15.2.1 note 910; 2.15.3{55} also elaborates this theme.
816.
All this is in line with Maimonides’ view on the function of rabbinic Midrash; see e.g. Guide III, 43 (Pines, 572–573); and see *12* *21a* *26*.
817.
‘God will see to a lamb for the burnt offering, namely: my son.’
818.
Note in this passage the traces of the potential-actual scheme advocated, mainly, by Naḥmanides; see above Sect. 2.8.1.1.
819.
See above Sect. 2.7.4.
820.
See above note 804.
821.
Pollack I, fols. 172b–173a.
822.
Here Arama refers to Chapter Sixteen of ‘Aqedat Yiṣḥaq (headed: ‘How Abraham reached the first stages of his perfection by means of his philosophy and how his virtues and spirituality guided all men of his generation’; I, fol. 114b, see also fols. 118a-b), and he repeats this notion again in his conclusions to the trial of the Aqedah: ‘(the trials of Abraham’s) circumcision and the Binding … show specifically how he escaped his former belief in astrology and reached (the trust in) divine revelation.’ {79}. For guidance of the stars as opposed to divine providence see e.g. Crescas Sect. 2.13.4.2 Or Ha-Shem II, 2, 6.
823.
See Appendix V: “After caught”.
824.
Rashi Sect. 2.3.3vs.13: ‘So we read in the Targum: “After this Abraham looked up.”’
825.
When zaqef qaṭon (on ayil) and zaqef gadol (on aḥar) occur together, the first is said to have the stronger disjunctive effect; this implies a sharper division between ayil and aḥar than between aḥar and ne’eḥaz, as if ‘ram’ and ‘after’ were divided by a comma. See also Abrabanel Sect. 2.15.3{84}; Be’ur Sect. 2.16.3.
826.
We will see below that Arama devotes extra space to a discussion of the rainbow, the evil spirits and the mouth of the earth as well. On the topic in general see Appendix II and A. van der Heide, “Created at Dusk. …” (1998), 147–159, especially 368–369.
827.
Guide II, 29 (Pines, 345–346): ‘The Sages, may their memory be blessed, have made a very strange statement about miracles [namely that they depend on preordained conditions; GenR 5, 5 (35)] …; it indicates the superiority of the man who made (this statement) and the fact that he found it extremely difficult to admit that a nature may change after the Work of the Beginning or that another volition may supervene after that nature has been established in a definite way. For instance he seems to consider that it was put into the nature of water to be continuous and always to flow from above downwards except at the time of the drowning of the Egyptians; it was a particularity of that water to become divided. … all this serves to avoid having to admit the coming-into-being of something new. [Follows the quotation of the passage from GenR 5, 5] All the other miracles can be explained in an analogous manner.’
828.
They are mentioned in I, 66 (Pines, 161) and fully treated in the commentary on Avot V, 6, but not in II, 29. Note, however, that Maimonides offers no explanation of the meaning of ‘the eve of Shabbat at dusk’.
829.
The full text of Avot V, 6 reads: ‘Ten things were created at the eve of the Sabbath at dusk: The mouth of the earth, the mouth of the well, the mouth of the she-ass, the rainbow, and the manna, and the rod, and the Shamir, the letters, and the writing, and the Tables. Some say: The evil spirits, and the sepulchre of Moses, and the ram of Abraham our father. Some also say: The tongs made with tongs.’
830.
For the rainbow Arama refers to the covenant with Noah; the demons are not specified.
831.
Micah 6, 6–8: “With what shall I approach the Lord, do homage to God on high? Shall I approach Him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? (7) Would the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, with myriads of streams of oil? Shall I give my first born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for my sins? (8) He has told you, o man, what is good, and what the Lord requires of you: Only to do justice and to love goodness, and to walk modestly with your God.”
832.
Saperstein, “A Sermon…”, 265 reads in these words a polemical thrust against those who consider, in times of persecution and martyrdom, the sacrifice of children (‘bound and slaughtered’) preferable to apostasy; above Sect. 2.13.6.1 note 753.
833.
‛Aqedat Yiṣḥaq, ed. Ch. J. Pollack I, fols. 148a-156b; we divided the text into numbered paragraphs and included the folio numbering of the edition.
834.
The reading of this passage, the so-called ma’amar, differs slightly from its source in Bereshit Rabba and is close to the one given in the Anonymous Sermon Sects. 2.13.6.1 at note 748; 2.13.6.2{1}.
835.
Shilluaḥ ha-hefqer: the taking of responsibility for deeds and choices.
836.
Hit‛aṣṣem: see note 793 above.
837.
Mofet ḥotekh: Efros, Philosophical Terms …, s.v.: ‘a decisive syllogism’, proving the existence of any being from its causes.
838.
Guide III, 17 (Pines 462–463): ‘In trying to avoid imputing negligence to God, they decided … that everything in this lowly world is hidden from Him. … (463) The knowledge of these things (the particulars) is impossible for the deity for various reasons. … [1] Particular things are apprehended by means of the senses only and not by the intellect; but God does not apprehend by means of a sense. [2] Particular things are infinite; … but what is infinite cannot be comprehended through knowledge. [3] The knowledge of things being produced in time … would necessitate some change in Him. … [4] He knows only the species and not the individuals. [5] He knows nothing at all outside Himself, so that … there is no multiplicity of cognitions. There are also some philosophers who believe, as we do, that He … knows everything and that nothing secret is at all hidden from Him.’
839.
See Ibn Ezra on Gen. 18, 21, above Sect. 2.2.2.1. On Chapter Nineteen (Pollack I, 134a-142b) see above note 804.
840.
Most uncertain: we-ḥozeret le-takhlit otam ha-devarim.
841.
Translation uncertain.
842.
Laqut – ‘a defect’; the eclipse is usually called liqquy.
843.
She’ela as from Arabic mas’ala, usually translated here as ‘discussion’. See above note 796.
844.
Pollack I, fol. 132ff.
845.
Pollack I, 134a-142b; see above note 804.
846.
Should be III, 20; Pines, 483.
847.
Read: kemotam instead of kamohu.
848.
Num. 19; Pollack IV, fol. 70b.
849.
Pollack II, fol. 60b where Chapter Forty (on Ex. 15) is headed: ‘Explains that the sin of those who sin on the basis of arguments is graver than of those who sin inadvertently;…’
850.
See note 796 above.
851.
On Ex. 33, 12 ff., 34, 29 ff; Pollack II, fol. 183a ff., headed: ‘The mater of the divine attributes explained; and His Providence; the Thirteen Attributes also elucidated; and the matter of the veil and the radiance of Moses our Master’s face.’
852.
Ibn Shmu’el, 103; Pines, 121.
853.
Ibn Shmu’el, 104; Pines, 123.
854.
Ha-to’ar ha-sholel, in casu: God’s non-ignorance.
855.
Translation uncertain.
856.
Pollack V, fol. 123a, headed: ‘The paradox of God knowing the future of contingencies dependant on human choice removed.’
857.
Pollack I, fol. 132a-b: ‘Circumcision (is something) that rational reasoning would never decree.’ ‘”Be blameless” with Me and do not pretend to be wise by depending on your own wisdom and relying on your wits, an example of which we had in the preceding chapter (on Hagar’s dismissal).’
858.
Cp. Jer. 18, 7. 9: “At one moment I may threaten to uproot a nation ….At another I may decide to build or to plant a nation or a kingdom.”
859.
See above note 804.
860.
See above note 805.
861.
Cp. Qidd. 40a quoted below in note 867. The idea is that when there is a good intention God will give the opportunity to express it by a good deed.
862.
In the context of the biblical story this verse rather means: ‘Now care for your own dynasty, David.’
863.
Midrash Tehillim on Ps. 30, 1 (233–4): ‘He who intends to perform a commandment but is prevented by force is considered as if he has performed it. David intended to build the Temple and indeed it was named after him, as it is written: “A song for the dedication of the House (of David)” (Ps. 30, 1).’ The usual translation is “A song, … by David.”
864.
Be-qirban u-ve-galut; or perhaps: ‘be it with a sacrifice (qorban), be it in public.’
865.
‘Thought it is one of the properties of a human being that are consequent upon his form. Consequently if he gives his thought a free scope in respect to disobedience, he commits an act of disobedience through the nobler of his two parts.’ (Pines, 434–435; cp. Ibn Shmuel, 391–392 for the Hebrew).
866.
Aristotle, Nicomachian Ethics III, i, 1: ‘Virtue however is concerned with emotions and actions, and it is only voluntary actions for which praise and blame are given…’ For the Hebrew cp. Satanov, fol. 19a.
867.
‘The Holy One combines a good intention with the (corresponding) deed…, but a bad intention is not combined with the deed by Him.... Said Rav Aḥa bar Jacob: It is the same with the worship of the stars (= idolatry). For a Master said: Worshipping the stars is such a serious offence that anybody who rejects it is considered as one who embraces to whole Torah.’
868.
From Abraham’s circumcision at 99 (Gen. 17, 1. 10vv.) and the announcement of Isaac’s birth (18, 14) until the Aqedah, when Isaac was 37. See also Appendix III.
869.
Cp. Gen. 46, 2 and Ex. 3, 4, both followed by the answer hinneni.
870.
Satanov, fol. 29a (= VIII, 6), where instead of ‘many things’ (harbe devarim) is read ‘many women’ (harbe nashim). Aristotle, The Nicomachian Ethics, VIII, vi, 2, quoted above note 807.
871.
Cp. Satanov, fol. 43b (= IX, 12). See also above note 807.
872.
Pollack V, fol. 26a ff.
873.
GenR 56, 10 (on Gen. 22, 14) reads differently in details. For more versions of Abraham’s argument with God based on Gen. 21, 12 see *9*, *27*.
874.
See above note 809.
875.
Jer. 7, 31 reads: “They have built a shrine …at which to burn their sons and daughters; that was no command of Mine, nor did it ever enter My mind”; similarly 19, 5 and 32, 35. It seems that the quotations mix the wordings of Jer. 7, 31 and 19, 5.
876.
Our editions read differently; see *36a*.
877.
Wilensky, Sefer Hariqma…, 58–59, translated above Sect. 2.14.2.4 at note 813.
878.
The sons of Rechab had vowed to dwell in tents and never to drink wine; see above note 811.
879.
After hearing the commands we now witness their execution.
880.
PRE 13, fols. 31b-32a; Friedlander, 92–93.
881.
Instead of MT “made them ride on the ass” (Ex. 4, 20); see Megilla 9a: ‘Once king Ptolemy assembled 72 Elders and placed them in 72 (separate) houses, but he did not tell them why he had assembled them. He entered at each of them and said: Write me down the Torah of your master Moses. The Holy One inspired each of them so that they all agreed. They all wrote: ‘God created in the beginning’ (cp. Gen. 1, 1), ‘Let Me make man in image and likeness’ (cp. Gen. 1, 26),…, ‘And Moses took his wife and his sons and made them ride on a carrier of men’ (cp. Ex. 4, 20),…’ Rashi, a.l.: ‘So that Ptolemy would not ask: Didn’t Moses your master possess a horse or a camel?’
882.
Cp. Avot IV, 1: ‘Who is a hero? He who subdues his (evil) nature.’
883.
GenR 60, 8: ‘When robbers took R. Phinehas ben Jair’s ass, it spent three days with them without eating anything. They said: It will soon die and foul our stable. They let the animal go and it returned to its master’s home. When it arrived it brayed. (R. Phinehas) recognized its voice and said: Open up for that poor creature and give it something to eat, for it has not eaten for three days. They gave it barley but it didn’t eat. He said to them: Is it regular food? They said: Yes. Did you take doubtfully tithed produce (demai)? They said: No, didn’t you teach us yourself that for buying grain for cattle, flour for (the tanning of) hides, oil for lighting or for anointing vessels, demai is not obliged? He said: What can we do, since it is so strict for itself?’
884.
God Himself had to visit Abimelech in a dream in order to withhold him from sinning with Sarah.
885.
See above Sect. 2.8.2.1vs.3 at note 477.
886.
I.e. the place which he thought to be the intended one; see on vs. 4.
887.
I.e. the Binding of Isaac; and see below {68}.
888.
Pollack I, fol. 135a.
889.
Pollack I, fols. 172b-173a. After referring to the tradition of the ‘truly wise’ (ḥakhme ha-emet) that Isaac represents God’s Justice, Arama remarks there: ‘I found … that for things concerning (Isaac) only the name Elohim is mentioned, but, miraculously, when someone else becomes involved Scripture speaks of ‘the Lord’ … When at the Binding God’s Justice changed into Mercy, it says: “The Angel of the Lord called out to him from heaven”’ (fol. 172 bottom).
890.
See Appendix III.
891.
See above note 822.
892.
Our Rashi texts do not have the ‘Haggadah’ quotation.
893.
Above Sects. 2.12.2 and 2.12.3.1: ‘This means that Abraham had looked up and that he saw an animal running. And he realised that it was a ram, after it was caught in the thicket with its horns. So Abraham went to take the ram and it became clear to him that this was the will of God when ordering him to offer his son Isaac there as a burnt-offering.’
894.
Arama’s quotation reads: aḥar ken ta‛avoru, but MT has: aḥar ta‛avoru.
895.
See above note 825.
896.
Guide II, 29 (Pines, 345–346); see above note 827.
897.
Pollack I, fol. 37a (Question Seven), 38a.
898.
Pollack I, fol. 104a ff. on the rainbow as a sign of the covenant; on fol. 106a Arama announces that the creation of the rainbow will be discussed in our Chapter Twenty-One.
899.
NumR 18, 20: ‘Rabba said: What is the meaning of “If the Lord creates something new (beri’a yivra) (and the earth opens its mouth and swallows them)” [namely, Korach and his rebels] (Num. 16, 30)? Moses said: Lord of the universe: If it is a (already existing) creation, like Gehenna, well and good. But if not, let the Lord create it! Why did he ask? If we say that it was really a new creation, it is inconsistent with “There is nothing new under the sun” (Eccl. 1, 9). No, he merely asked for the opening (of the earth) to be brought near (the rebels).’
900.
End of Preamble II, above {34}{35}: It is the intention of a deed that causes its effects, not the actual deed.
901.
Micah 6, 6–8: “With what shall I approach the Lord, do homage to God on high? Shall I approach Him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? (7) Would the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, with myriads of streams of oil? Shall I give my first born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for my sins? (8) He has told you, o man, what is good, and what the Lord requires of you: Only to do justice and to love goodness, and to walk modestly with your God.”
902.
The family name Abrabanel, Abarbanel or Abravanel, etc. occurs in several variants.
903.
The Biblical commentaries, Jerusalem 1955–1966, are revisions and reprints of earlier editions. A collection of facsimile editions of his other works was published under the title Opera Minora, with an Introduction by L. Jacobs (Farnborough 1972). For bibliographical details see the sources mentioned in E. Lawee, HBOT II (2008), 190 and Idem, Isaac Abarbanel’s Stance… (2001), xi-xii; for a review of their content, Ibid., Ch. 2.
904.
For Abrabanel’s method as he formulated it in the Introduction to his first commentary, on the Former Prophets, see e.g. E. Lawee in HBOT II (2008), 195–199; Idem, Stance…, 37–40; also Ch. 5 there.
905.
Arama Sect. 2.14.1 note 781 and M. Saperstein, “The Method of Doubts”.
906.
See also A. Even Chen, ‘Aqedat Yiṣḥaq be-farshanut ha-misṭit we-ha-filosofit shel ha-Miqra (Tel Aviv 2006), 89–105 who concentrates on the soteriological aspect of Abrabanel’s Aqedah theology, his realistic concept of the prophetic phenomena as distinct from Maimonides’ view, and Abraham’s failure to grasp the ambivalent character of God’s command.
907.
Before him R. Nissim Sect. 2.11.3 at note 635 also expressly formulated the belief in the immortality of the soul as the third lesson of the Aqedah. Jonah Gerondi Sect. 2.13.3 and Crescas Sect. 2.13.4.2 at note 720 held similar beliefs; see Index B: immortality.
908.
Abrabanel refers here to Abraham Ibn Ezra who, on several occasions, compared the conjunction wa- with little or no specific meaning, to Arabic fa-. In fact Ibn Ezra has no comment on the present waw and its seems that Abrabanel’s reference to ‘expressions of speaking or calling’ is mistaken; cp. A. Lipshitz, Ibn Ezra Studies, 122–122. A better reason for referring to fa- is the verb wa-yiśśa’ in vs. 4; see above Ibn Ezra 2.2.3 note 62; Kimḥi 2.6.3 note 417.
909.
But below in sections {61} and {63} it is mentioned in passing as an indication of the still untroubled atmosphere between father and son; this has midrashic backing. *19*
910.
See Arama Sect. 2.14.2.4 note 815, who also attributed this obviously medieval pun to ‘the Sages’. Note that Abrabanel’s decision to mark the more daring midrashic interpretations as poetic licence is in line with Maimonides’ view on the function of rabbinic Midrash; see e.g Guide III, 43 (Pines, 572–573).
911.
Above Sect. 2.8.2.1vs.3.
912.
Instead of ‘that he himself would be the burnt-offering’, ‘would be the sheep’ we translated ‘could be’. It is tempting to ascribe these views to ‘the wise men of later generations’ {59}, or ‘the later authorities’ {63} mentioned by Abrabanel, but the texts do not seem to allow this.
913.
According to the verse “And the sons of Aaron, the priests, will (first) put fire on the altar and (then) lay out wood upon the fire” (Lev. 1, 7; cp. 1, 8).
914.
Of course, Rashi was not the only one in noting the ambivalence of ha‘alehu; see Index A. *8*.
915.
See above Sect. 2.7.4.
916.
According to A.J. Reines, Maimonides and Abrabanel on Prophecy, lxxiii-lxxx; EJ2 1, 278, their difference of opinion concentrates on the fact that Maimonides saw prophecy as a natural phenomenon whereas Abrabanel saw it as God’s miraculous intervention by means of dreams and visions into the life of His prophets (including Moses), granting them knowledge that is certain and infallible and thus superior to natural and scientific knowledge. See also A.F. Borodowsky, Isaac Abravanel on Miracles, Creation, Prophecy, and Evil (New York 2003), esp. Ch.: “The Concept of a Miracle”; A. Even Chen, ‘Aqedat Yiṣḥaq, 97–99.
917.
Guide II, 42 and 45 in the Warsaw edition, fols. 88a, 93a; translated and discussed by Reines, 176–178, 216–217. Just like here in the Genesis commentary, he does not mention the names of authors who deny the story its reality.
918.
M. Wilensky (ed.), Sefer Hariqma (Kitāb al-Luma‘), 58–59 on the various meanings of the preposition le-; the idiom there is that God ‘changed’ (shinna) His words (cp. Ps. 34, 1). See above Arama 2.14.2.4 at note 813 where the whole passage is given in translation.
919.
“And make the Rechabites drink wine.” The ‘sons of Rechab’ had vowed never to drink wine and would certainly not accept what was offered to them. Abraham Ibn Ezra Sect. 2.2.3vs.1 already mentioned this argument; also Arama, see preceding note.
920.
See above Sect. 2.12.2.
921.
The proof text is Ex. 2, 6: “And she opened (the basket) and saw him, the child.” The double object of ‘saw’ is assumed to suggest that Pharaoh’s daughter first saw something and then gradually realised that it was a child she saw.
922.
See above at note 914.
923.
At this point Abrabanel concludes ‘Thus Questions Fourteen and Fifteen have been solved’, but the issues at hand are discussed again in the next two sections.
924.
Above Sect. 2.7.3.
925.
See above at Question Two {7} dealing with the rival views of the purpose of the Aqedah.
926.
Although always translated by a present, the Hebrew makes use here of a perfect tense. And see above Sect. 2.13.4.2 Or ha-Shem II, 1.1 note 714.
927.
Note that Question Seventeen is in fact two questions.
928.
‘Fear’ should be taken to imply the whole range of positive attitudes towards the Deity; see {80} where Abrabanel devotes a short remark to the relation between fear and love.
929.
Min – ‘from’ in its capacity of comparative ‘than’.
930.
Cp. e.g. Guide II, 45 end, where it is stated that Moses was the only one who was able to experience divine revelation in full consciousness.
931.
Cp. e.g. Guide II, Introduction, 20th premise. (Pines, 238)
932.
See e.g. Guide I, 61: ‘All the names of God that are to be found in any of the books derive from actions.... The only exception is the name Y H W H… This name gives a clear and unequivocal indication of His essence.’ (Pines, 147)
933.
Appendix V.
934.
Aḥar ne’eḥaz ‘is not a subordinate clause (samukh) but an independent one’ (mukhrat). The dividing accent (zaqef gadol) on aḥar also indicates its independence and precludes it being read as the temporal subordinate conjunction ‘after’. {84} See Arama Sect. 2.14.3{70}; Be’ur Sect. 2.16.3.
935.
A secondary possibility is to read aḥar as the preposition ‘behind’: ‘behind the altar, as if God had caught it there for this purpose.’ This is a rare suggestion; but see Maimuni Sect. 2.13.2.1.
936.
Naḥalat Avot, fols. 162a-168a; on the ram especially 167a-b. For the context see A. van der Heide,
“Created at Dusk” (1998), esp. 369–371 and A.F. Borodowsky, Isaac Abravanel on Miracles, Creation, Prophecy, and Evil (New York 2003), 106–125.
937.
Guide I, 66 (Pines, 160–161); II, 29 (345–346).
938.
It is the common rabbinic view that man’s creation, his sin and its punishment all took place on the sixth day of creation; cp. e.g. Sanh. 38b; ARN A, 1 (fol. 3a).
939.
See above Sect. 2.12.3.1vs.14.
940.
See above Sect. 2.8.2.1vs.16.
941.
I found no direct parallel for this Midrash-like decoding of the biblical metaphor.
942.
Abrabanel’s reference to Bereshit Rabba is problematic; cp. *24c* *25* and Midrash Wa-Yosha‘ (Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch I, 38): ‘“Do him nothing” (vs. 12). Abraham said to the Angel: The Holy One told me to slaughter him, but you say: Do not slaughter him. Words of the master and words of the pupil, whose words have to be obeyed? Immediately: “The Angel of the Lord called to Abraham a second time… By Myself I swear, the Lord declares… I will certainly bless you” (vss. 15–17).’
943.
Midrashic sources have a different explanation for Isaac’s absence, as either being sent to Gan Eden *31c* or to Shem for instruction. *31a* Sometimes Sarah’s death, told in the chapter immediately following the Aqedah, is described as caused by the shock of hearing what happened to her son (e.g. PRE 32 fol. 72b). In the wording of Question Twenty-Five reference is made to the Midrash that understood Abraham’s words “I and the boy … will return” (vs. 5) as a ‘prophecy’; *18* this point is neglected here.
944.
It is not before the very end of this part of his discourse that Abrabanel gives it a name: Haqdamat ha-kelalot – ‘the introduction of the principles’.
945.
For this Abrabanel quotes Abraham Ibn Ezra, Commentary on Gen. 17, 5 (Weiser, 61, with slight variations).
946.
E. Lawee, “The ‘Ways of Midrash’ in the Biblical Commentaries of Isaac Abarbanel,” HUCA 67 (1996), 107–142; Idem, Stance…, Ch. 5: “The Rabbinic Hermeneutic: Midrash in the Biblical Commentaries”.
947.
See Appendix I. ‘According to the Sages, our father Abraham was tried with ten trials, but only here it is explicitly stated “that God tried Abraham”. … Our Sages carefully phrased their words by saying: Abraham was tried with ten trials. They did not say: The Lord tried Abraham, because when God commanded him to do these deeds, the inevitable result was that Abraham was tried.’ {48}
948.
See Appendix II. ‘We believers do not say that this ram was created in its own time in the normal way, but rather by way of a miracle.... This is what the Sages said in the Mishnah, tractate Avot (V, 6), that it was one of the things that were created on the eve of the first Sabbath at dusk. This means that then already it was God’s plan to perform this miracle at the time when it was needed.’ {85}
949.
‘Our Sages in their poetic ways of speaking said that the very ass which Abraham saddled was the same as the one on which Moses rode, as well as the one on which the king Messiah will ride. This tells us that the ass that Abraham subjected to his reason was also the one subjected by our master Moses when he received the Torah, and again by the king Messiah who will grant us the ultimate perfections. They mentioned these three, Abraham, Moses and the Messiah, because they are the beginning, middle and end of the perfection of our nation.’ {55} ‘Mount Moriah, the very place where the altar of the Temple would be built.... Adam too was created from that spot and there he had lived when he was driven out of paradise, as I have mentioned in relation to the first chapters of Genesis. Noah too built his altar there.’ {51}
950.
See {52} and {75}.
951.
Especially Gen. 21, 12: “In Isaac offspring will be called for you”; see {50}.
952.
See {41} and {43}. More references to midrashic themes and topics, with however a minimum of intrinsic authority, are found in the cases of the expression ‘Love disturbs the rules’ *13a* in {53}; the cloud that marked Mount Moriah *16a* in {57}; the possibility that “Now I know” denotes the knowledge of the Angel and not God’s *24c* in {80} and {95}; the categorisation of good and bad angels in {91}; the sufferings of Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah in {62}. We noted already that the pun on ‘his ass’ as ‘his matter’ (ḥamoro/ḥomro) in {55} is also attributed to ‘the Sages’; see note 910.
953.
The idea was taken from the Midrash, *8a* *9a* as almost everything in Rashi.
954.
But see note 908 above.
955.
See above notes 919 and 918.
956.
It is not easy to retrieve this view in Crescas’ Refutation of the Christian Principles (see above Sect. 2.13.4.2). A better reference would be to the passage in Or ha-Shem II, 2, 6 (above Sects. 2.13.4.2 and 2.13.4.3).
957.
Arama Sect. 2.14.2.4 note 807.
958.
Yesh mi she-peresh {56}{76}, ḥakhamim min ha-aḥaronim {59}, or da‘at ha-aḥaronim ha-elle (63}. It is not clear whether the references in {73}, {86}, and {87} serve the same purpose.
959.
Perush ‘al ha-Tora, pp. 261b-277b; we divided the text into numbered sections and included the numbering of pages and columns of the edition.
960.
E.g.: ‘For we know all that we know only through looking at the beings;… He, may He be exalted, is not like that, I mean that His knowledge of things is not derived from them… On the contrary, the things in question follow upon His knowledge…’ (Pines, 485).
961.
Above Sect. 2.2.3vs.4.
962.
See above Question Two {8}.
963.
By Nimrod, see e.g. Pes. 118a; GenR. 38, 13 (363–364). The event is counted among Abraham’s ten trials; see Appendix I.
964.
The common rabbinic notion is that the name Elohim represents God’s justice, whereas the Tetragrammaton (usually translated as ‘Lord’) stands for His mercy.
965.
Ma’amar pasuq; read perhaps ma’amar poseq – ‘categorical statement’; cp. e.g. Millot ha-Higgayon I, 2. 3 (ed. L. Roth, 6; ed. M. Ventura, 18–19). It is somewhat difficult to see the relevance of the different tenses.
966.
The atnaḥ.
967.
Onkelos translates the words quoted from Gen. 12, 8 as: “And he prayed (we-ṣalli) in the name of the Lord” and our verse as: “And Abraham worshipped and prayed there (pelaḥ we-ṣalli … taman) on that site. He said before the Lord: Here the generations will worship, therefore it will be said of this day: On this mount Abraham has worshipped the Lord.”
968.
Taman be-ar‘a da (‘There in that land’); our text of Onkelos however reads: Taman be-atra ha-hu (‘There at that place’).
969.
Note that MT reads ki ya‘an asher.
970.
Lo tippol ba-ze. In both readings of the verse either the first or the second ki is redundant; see below in {92}.
971.
In {67}-{69}.
972.
Refers to the custom to recite Genesis 22, 1–19 daily during the morning service; cp. e.g. Baer, Seder ‘Avodat Yisra’el, 157; and see above Sect. 1.3.1.1.
973.
See at note 945 above.
974.
See above note 956.
975.
GenR 55, 1 (fragment), with variant diggalon; see *2b*.
976.
Saperstein, “A Sermon…”, 265 reads Abrabanel’s emphasis on Isaac’s survival (here and above {39}) as a denial of the value of actual martyrdom; see above Sect. 2.13.6.1 note 753.
977.
In paraphrase: Abraham was tried and tested a number of times before, but now something very special was at hand: Take now your son.
978.
See above note 908.
979.
See Arama 2.14.2.4 note 807.
980.
Commentary on Gen. 3, 22 as quoted above Sect. 2.15.2.1.
981.
Cp. Gen. 24, 10 etc.
982.
See above note 910.
983.
I found no source for the expression ha-davar ha-matmid ṣa‘aro yoter qashe.
984.
See Dan. 3 and 1, 7.
985.
De-‘ane le-‘aniye (‘inyanan). Davidson, Thesaurus, dalet 237: Petiḥa for the Aramaic Seliḥa De-‘ane le-Avraham be-har ha-Moriya (dalet 236), found in several Sefardi prayer books.
986.
Guide II, 42 (Pines, 388); and see above at note 915.
987.
See above at note 915.
988.
Pines, 402: ‘The Eleventh [!] Degree consists in the prophet’s seeing an angel who addresses him in a vision as Abraham at the time of the binding. In my opinion this is the highest of the degrees of the prophets.’
989.
See above note 918.
990.
See above note 919.
991.
Meaning: ‘in the manner of a burnt-offering.’
992.
Sic; MT has: “On the altar of the burnt-offering.”
993.
Instead of the expected ke-khol.
994.
The double object of ‘saw’ is assumed to suggest that Pharaoh’s daughter first saw something and then gradually realized that it was a child she saw.
995.
Or: ‘certain scholars’. Gersonides made the ambiguity of the command “offer him/bring him up” in vs. 2 the centre of his interpretation, but he was not the only one to exploit this fact; see Index A.
996.
And elements of Question Seventeen too.
997.
Apart from the argument itself (cp. *9*, etc.), a midrashic source to this intent is not identifiable.
998.
Temura, in sacrificial law: exchange of one animal for another by which most of the particulars of the former go over to the latter.
999.
See above note 934.
1000.
“And let me fetch a morsel of bread that you may refresh yourselves; then go on… (aḥar ta‘avoru).”
1001.
Naḥalat Avot, fols.167a-b; see above note 936.
1002.
Adonay nissi; ‘banner’, but also ‘miracle’.
1003.
Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Teshuva VIII, 3–4: ‘This (i.e. life in the world to come) is the great reward, greater than anything else… (4) It has been called metaphorically by many names: Mount of the Lord, His holy place,…’.
1004.
Gersonides Sect. 2.13.2.1vs.14.
1005.
In the rabbinic sources mention is made of ‘angels of life’ and ‘angels of death’ (e.g. GenR 9, 10), or of ‘angels of peace’ against ‘angels of Satan’, also ‘angels of destruction’ (e.g. TShabb. 17 (18), 2–3).
1006.
The reference to GenR is problematic; see above note 942.
1007.
See above note 943.
1008.
E. Breuer, “Jewish Study of the Bible before and during the Jewish Enlightenment” in: HBOT II, 1006–1023. See also his The Limits of Enlightenment (Harvard 1996); P. Sendler, Ha-Be’ur la-Tora shel Moshe Mendelssohn we-si‘ato (Jerusalem 1940–41); A. Altmann, Moses Mendelssohn (London 1973), esp. chapter V: “The Teacher”; A. van der Heide, “The Be’ur in Progress: Salt en Spices at a Medieval Banquet” in: Sepharad in Ashkenaz (Amsterdam 2007), 141.
1009.
Reprinted in photo-offset in GS 15–18.
1010.
GS 15, 1: 19–55 (facsimile) and GS 14: 211–268; translated in GS 9, 1: 1–96. Apparently, Weinberg (GS 9, 1: XLIII-IV) is the first to plead, plausibly, for la-netiva instead of the usual li-netiva.
1011.
Naftali Hertz (Hartwig) Wessely (1725–1805) for Leviticus, Aaron Jaroslav (of whom little is known) for Numeri, and Hertz Homberg (1749–1841) for Deuteronomy.
1012.
Formulated in the Introduction to Sefer Megillat Qohelet of 1770 (GS 14: 145–207, especially 148–153) and also in Or la-Netiva (GS 15, 1: especially 35–41). Breuer, The Limits…, 147–175, Ch. 5: “In Defence of the Traditional Biblical Text” and 177–222, Ch. 6: “Rabbinic Interpretation in an Age of Enlightenment”; Idem, in: HBOT II, 1012–1017.
1013.
See Breuer, The Limits…, 147–175, Ch. 5: “In Defence of the Traditional Biblical Text” and also R. Jospe, “Moses Mendelssohn: A Medieval Modernist”, in: Sepharad in Ashkenaz, esp. 118–122: “Biblical Criticism: The Modern Ibn Ezra and the Medieval Mendelssohn.” Of course, for a long time orthodox protestant exegesis held the same principles in respect to the Masoretic text and authorial integrity.
1014.
Rabbi Samuel ben Meir, the grandson of Rashi (see above Sect. 2.4.1.2), was never a very well known exegete until the beginning of the 18th century, when his dedication to the peshaṭ became noticed. Mendelssohn and Dubno had access to the unique medieval manuscript of Rashbam’s commentary (from the collection of David Oppenheimer) which they preferred to the mistake ridden (Pentateuch) edition, Berlin 1705; see Sendler, 89–91; Breuer, The Limits …, 219–221; HBOT II, 1008. The rejection of some of Rashbam’s opinions in our chapter confirms the reservations expressed here.
1015.
GS 15, 1: 40; GS 14: 244; GS 9, 1: 59.
1016.
Sefer Megillat Qohelet (1770), GS 14: 148. GS 20, 1: 177–279 presents the 1771 German translation of this book by J.J. Rabe; an introduction and summary by D. Krochmalnik on pages LI-LX. On ‘PaRDeS’ see above Sect. 1.4.3.8; Baḥya Sect. 2.9.2.
1017.
In Mendelssohn’s formulation: The primary meaning disregards the (individual) words and sticks to the message (‘ozevet ha-millot we-shomeret ha-ṭe‘amim), the secondary meaning scrutinizes every single word, letter or stroke; e.g. GS 14: 150. The terminology is reminiscent of Abraham Ibn Ezra.
1018.
Breuer, The Limits …, 221. According to Breuer, HBOT II, 1020, N.H. Wessely, the author of the Be’ur of Leviticus, reversed these priorities and maintained that the ‘real’ peshaṭ should be found in the derash. This is a view that resonated strongly in modern orthodox circles and became manifest in the work of Meir Leibush Michal (Malbim; 1808–1879). In our chapter the derash issue is very subdued: The meaning ‘elevate’ for nissa is considered derash and rejected; the relation between Moriah and mor – ‘myrrh’ is presented as highly questionable; Isaac’s dispatch to the academies of Sem and Heber (vs. 19) *31a* is merely mentioned.
1019.
E.g. Rashbam and Abrabanel on nissa; Saadya, Rashi and Rashbam on “I know”; Ibn Ezra on “after”; Elijah Levita’s gloss on ya‘an (vs. 16); Maimonides’ idea of musk.
1020.
His interpretation of nissa as ‘to punish’, which is rejected; his solution for aḥar – ‘after’.
1021.
The reference to Maimonides’ interpretation of ‘musk’ is immaterial.
1022.
E.g. nissa as ‘to elevate’; the reminiscence of the mythical character of “the altar” in vs. 2 *21a*; the cloud indicating Mount Moriah in vs. 4 *16a*; the knife ‘eating flesh’ in vs. 6 *23*.
1023.
See above School of Rashi 2.4.2.1. We noted (note 1014 above) Mendelssohn’s reserved esteem for Rashbam, whose opinion is rejected here.
1024.
Cp. *2c*; Mekhilta de-R.Y, Yitro 9 (237) and Rashi on Ex. 20, 17/20 as referred to in the commentary.
1025.
In the text we see here no more than the abbreviation wz”l (= we-ze leshono); usually Dubno refers to Mendelssohn as Ha-Metargem ha-Ashkenazi – ‘the German translator’. The passage closes, like most quotations, with‘k”l (‘ad kan leshono – ‘so far’). Mendelssohn formulated this view on synonymy also at the beginning of the introduction to his Ecclesiastes commentary: ‘An author or speaker (ba‘al ha-lashon) is free to make use of synonyms. … But in truth all synonyms have something special which distinguishes the one from the other, so that not two words can be found to denote the same thing’ (GS 14: 148). Abraham Ibn Ezra’s preface to his commentary on the Decalogue resonates here.
1026.
As we repeatedly saw this is one of the meanings of the Biblical verb nissa; see Appendix IV; Index A: “tried”.
1027.
The German translation of vs. 1 reads ‘Es war nach diese Begebenheiten als Gott Abraham versuchte.’
1028.
Naḥmanides in his commentary on Gen. 22, 2 refers to PT Peah 7c but follows an altogether different tradition in Ex. 30, 23 (“flowing myrrh”).
1029.
It is interesting to see that here in the commentary Mendelssohn finds occasion to modify his ‘official’ German translation which simply reads ‘Denn nun weiss ich.’
1030.
Abrabanel Sect. 2.15.3{86} gives the same examples.
1031.
See Abraham Ibn Ezra Sect. 2.2.2 note 38.
1032.
Text in GS 15, 2: 205–213; a partial German translation (vss. 1 and 12) in GS 9, 3: 87–90.
1033.
All taken from Rashbam, not without some variations. For the gloss contraria see above Sect. 2.4.2.2 note 142.
1034.
Havḥana – ‘distinction, discrimination’, etymologically related to beḥina – ‘test’, but probably chosen here to include the meaning ‘to make a difference, stand out’ that distinguishes nissa from baḥan.
1035.
Abrabanel Sect. 2.15.3{43}, in reference to Ps. 4, 7 and Is. 11, 10.
1036.
Or rather nsy in modern notation.
1037.
Mekhilta de-R.Y, Yitro 9 (237); Rashi, a.l. The passage is bracketed in the original.
1038.
See above note 1025.
1039.
Brackets in the original.
1040.
See above note 1027.
1041.
Cp. PT Peah 7, 4; fol. 20a end.
1042.
A textual observation by Dubno.
1043.
See Naḥmanides’ detailed discussion on Ex. 30, 23, where however the latter part of this quotation does not appear.
1044.
Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, H. Kele ha-Miqdash I, 3: ‘Myrrh (ha-mor) (consists of) clotted blood (dam ṣarur) of an Indian animal, known to all, with which people perfume themselves in several places.’
1045.
So Rashi.
1046.
So Rashi.
1047.
To my regret I was unable to decode the word וטנאניוקס or וטצאציוקס.
1048.
“And Balaam rose and went and returned to his place…”.
1049.
Reminiscent of a participle hif‘il.
1050.
So the words “lamb for the burnt-offering” form a stronger unit than “burnt-offering, my son.”
1051.
So Rashi.
1052.
Sect. 2.4.3.2: ‘Now I see and now it has become public (nitparsem) over the whole world that you are God-fearing.’
1053.
On vs. 1: ‘… The Gaon knew very well that on the moment that (Abraham) bound his son, not even his servants were present.’ Note that the preceding reference to Ibn Ezra is somewhat misleading.
1054.
Note that the translation simply reads ‘Denn nun weiss ich.’
1055.
‘Hiernach ward er … verwickelt.’
1056.
‘In den Hecken’: ‘hedge’ instead of ‘thicket, bushes’.
1057.
Brackets in the original. On Gen. 19, 37(!) “Until today” the Be’ur quotes Rashbam as follows: ‘The days of Moses; and so every case of “until today”: until the days of the scribe who wrote this. (Rashbam)’
1058.
In the German translation: ‘Abraham nennte denselben Ort Ha-Shem yir’e.’
1059.
See above note 1030.
1060.
Mendelssohn translates: ‘Auf dem Berge des Ewigen wird es sich zeigen.’
1061.
Kimḥi, Shorashim, s.v.; Elijah Levita’s Nimmuqim were added on the pages of the Venice editions of 1546 and 1547 of the Shorashim. Indeed the anointment of the prophet in Is. 61 is neither reward nor retaliation.
1062.
The Aqedah was a deed in response to God’s command and a testimony to the world, as formulated by Ibn Ezra Sect. 2.2.3 vs.16: ‘Ya‘an comes from ‘ana – ‘to answer’: this deed is an answer (on God’s command) and bears witness (to Abraham’s faith).’
1063.
The first half of this passage is difficult and can be forced into line only by some manipulation, but the latter half makes clear what is meant: the first ki (vs. 16) gives the reason for the oath (Abraham’s deed) and the second (vs. 17) its object (the blessings).
1064.
So Kimḥi.
1065.
Similar Kimḥi.
1066.
Here Dubno, in the traces of Rashi, embarks on a lengthy digression on the various traditions about Abraham’s dwelling places. For the issue itself see below Appendix III.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Leiden University and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (retired), Leiden, The Netherlands
Albert van der Heide

Authors

Albert van der Heide
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

van der Heide, A. (2017). Texts. In: ‘Now I Know’: Five Centuries of Aqedah Exegesis. Amsterdam Studies in Jewish Philosophy, vol 17. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47521-9_2

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47521-9_2
Published: 01 March 2017
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-47520-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-47521-9
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics