ÉTUDES SUR LE JUDAÏSME MÉDIÉVAL
FONDÉES PAR
GEORGES VAJDA
DIRIGÉES PAR
PAUL B. FENTON
TOME XXIX
SEARCH SCRIPTURE WELL
Karaite Exegetes and the Origins of the Jewish Bible Commentary in the Islamic East
BY DANIEL FRANK
This book is printed on acid-free paper.
Library ofCongress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Frank Daniel.
Search Scripture well : Karaite exegetes and the origins ofthe Jewish Bible commentary in the Islamic East / by Daniel Frank p. cm. — (Etudes sur le judaïsme médiéval, ISSN 0169-815X ; t. 29)
Includes bibliographical references and indexes.
ISBN 90-04-13902-8
1. Bible. O.T.—Criticism, interpretation, etc., Jewish—History—To 1500. 2. Karaites—Palestine. 3. Karaites—Iraq. 4. Manuscripts. Karaite. 5. Japheth ben Ali, ha-Levi, 10th cent. I. Title. II. Series.
BS1186.F65 2004 221.6’09—dc22
2004045719
ISSN0169-815X
ISBN90 04 13902 8 © Copyright 2004 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910 Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change.
PRINTEDINTHENETHERLANDS
[mam-[faf
Δr[fapˆyydˆWprsWmμ[dˆWzˆyymWxr[h ≥r[fWmˆyydˆWpr[lydˆzalrapfynfslazˆwa
hnyd[
òwkwμl;m;[}B' b/frk;c; μh,l;-vy rv,a} dj;a≤h;-ˆm μyn"V]h' μyb/f .qteN:yI hr;hem]biaOlvL;v¨m]h' fWjh'w“
This page intentionally left blank
Chapter One“Search Scripture Well”..................................1
Chapter TwoUnclean Birds and Tassels: Indeterminacy and Halakhic Exegesis..........................................................33
Appendix: Japheth b. Eli on Deuteronomy 14:11–20 (= Text 2.2)........................................................80
Japheth b. Eli on Deuteronomy 33:4 (= Text 2.4)........................................................88
Chapter ThreeInterpreting Dreams and Scriptures............95
Appendix: Japheth b. Eli on Genesis 40:12–13 (= Text 3.4)
Sahl b. Maslia˙ on Genesis 41:15–16 (= Text 3.8)........................................................139
Sahl b. Maslia˙ on Genesis 41:5–7 (= Text 3.10)......................................................143
Chapter Four“The Voice of the Turtledove”: Interpreting the Song of Songs............................................145
Chapter FiveThe Shoshannim and Their Liturgy: Exegesis, Prayer, and Communal Identity..........................165
Chapter SixA Prophet Like Moses: Exegesis As Religious Polemic....................................................................................204
Epilogue: On the Origins of the Jewish Bible Commentary in the Islamic East................................................................248
PREFACE
The pages of a rabbinic Bible (miqra"ot gedolot) constitute a treasury of traditional learning. Since the eighteenth century these great works have presented the Hebrew Bible as a multi-layered text. Scripture, Aramaic translations, medieval commentaries and super-commentaries are all carefully arrayed so that we may compare interpretations,catch allusions, and follow debates. Here exegetes from eleventh-century Troyes, thirteenth-century Gerona, and sixteenth-century Bologna keep company, with the younger authors often citing and criticizing their elders’ views. Virtually all of them were Europeans, the products of Ashkenazic (Franco-Germanic) or Sefardic (Spanish) intellectual traditions. The Aramaic targumim apart, all of the commentaries are in rabbinic Hebrew.
But the Jewish Bible commentary was born in the Islamic East, not the Christian West. Writing in Arabic, Jewish scholars in Iraq and the Land of Israel developed a new literary genre in order to meet the changing needs of eastern communities. Even as rabbinic culture and prestige reached new heights under the leadership of the Babylonian Geonim and their academies, Islamic culture was penetrating Jewish society more deeply. Long the vernacular, Arabic now replaced Aramaic as the language of Jewish scholarship, and an Arabic Bible translation (tafsìr) now accomplished the task of the Aramaic Targum. And since the anonymously edited, loosely structured midrashim were inadequate for readers accustomed to the systematic works of Arabic scholarship, commentaries were fashioned on Christian models available in the Islamic world.
An internal schism, dividing the Jews into Rabbanite and Karaite camps, also served as a catalyst in this process. Staunch scripturalists, the Karaites rejected rabbinic authority and sought to restore Judaism to its biblical roots. Beginning in the first half of the tenth century, they produced an impressive body of literature to further their reforming campaign. Though written almost entirely in Arabic and largely forgotten, the numerous commentaries that they and their Rabbanite opponents composed are the true ancestors of the Hebrew works enshrined in a rabbinic Bible.
This book traces the contours of Karaite biblical exegesis as it developed in the Islamic East during the tenth century. Rather than attempting a comprehensive study of the major exegetes and their commentaries, I have taken a thematic approach. There are good reasons for setting more modest goals. Very few of these works have ever been published, even in part, and most of the existing editions are unsatisfactory. While the extensive manuscript holdings in Western Europe have long been accessible, the greatest collection of Karaite manuscripts—preserved in the Russian National Library in St. Petersburg—is only now being catalogued. Until a proper survey of this material has been completed, it would be premature to attempt anything like a fair assessment of medieval Karaite exegesis. All the same, it is possible to investigate certain key problems and themes which preoccupied these early commentators. If it is too soon to attempt a large canvas, there is plenty of material for the sketchbook. It is my hope that through the studies presented here I will have contributed to the fascinating picture of medieval Jewish biblical interpretation which is now beginning to emerge from these texts. In the same spirit, I have cited the commentaries at length, allowing the exegetes to speak for themselves. I know of no better way to convey some sense of their methods, style, and general approach. If this story has a hero, it must be Japheth b. Eli, the first Jew to comment on the entire Bible. Japheth hailed from Basra, but sometime after the middle of the tenth century he moved to Jerusalem, joining the Karaite community of Mourners for Zion. Over a period of perhaps four decades he accomplished his monumental task, composing highly detailed, comprehensive commentaries which are almost all extant in manuscript. Indeed, his work was preserved and recopied by Karaite communities over the next nine centuries. Like his fellow sectarians, Japheth viewed the world through biblical lenses. And since he also took pains to cite multiple interpretations, it is possible to reconstruct the ideational universe of the Jerusalem Karaites from his exegesis. The commentaries are a source, therefore, for our knowledge of the specific context in which they were written. At the same time, they furnish much of the raw material for an evaluation of the tenth-century exegetical enterprise as a whole. This work comprises six chapters. Chapter One introduces the exegetes and their world. The hallmark of early Karaite interpretation is an anti-traditionalist rationalism. Investigating the Bible without rabbinic preconceptions became an intellectual and religious
imperative. At the same time, certain scholars, such as Daniel alQùmisì, connected the woes of the Exile with adherence to rabbinic Judaism. Preaching a return to scriptural religion, they urged their fellow-Jews to settle in Jerusalem. As Mourners for Zion, they pursued a regime of night-vigils, prayer, lamentation, and Bible-study. And through their prognostic approach to biblical prophecies, they found their own world—their activities, travails, and ultimate triumph— predicted in Scripture. The chapter concludes with a study of the dictum ascribed to Anan b. David, “Search Scripture well, and do not rely upon my opinion”—a slogan that encapsulates early Karaite biblicism.
From the beginning, the Karaite-Rabbanite debate has been defined by the question of authority. This is especially true in the realm of law where divergent practices demarcate the two groups. For Karaites, legislation must be firmly grounded in Scripture; ancestral tradition simply will not do. By contrast, Rabbanite Jews effectively give priority to the Oral Tradition—in the form of the Talmud—which serves to mediate biblical law. Chapter Two explores these positions by considering the ways in which Karaite and Rabbanite scholars handle ambiguous or indeterminate areas of scriptural legislation.
Biblical narrative, by contrast, presented relatively few real sources of friction between the two groups. Rabbanite and Karaite authors alike favored lengthy, deliberate expositions. Chapter Three is devoted to explications of dream narratives—specifically Genesis 40–41 and Daniel 2—which afford our exegetes an occasion for discussing the interpretive process. Since they regarded dream interpretation and biblical exegesis as essentially a single rational activity, their interpretations of these passages betray much about their self-perceptions.
For medievals dream interpretation was, of course, prognostic, and a significant portion of the Jerusalem Karaites’ writings manifests an apocalyptic outlook. Chapters Four, Five, and Six each investigate a separate aspect of the Mourners’ prognostic exegesis. Chapter Four is devoted to the interpretation of the Song of Songs, which Salmon b. Yerù˙ìm and Japheth b. Eli read as salvation history. A comparison of their commentaries—the earliest extant on the Song by Jews—reveals significant developments in the conception and execution of the genre. In its attempt at a comprehensive reading, Japheth’s commentary in particular displays sensitivity to the Song’s structure, while distinguishing sharply between the literal (Ωàhir) and hidden (bà†in) meanings of its figurative language.
The salvation history read into the Song of Songs also furnished a framework for interpreting many of the Psalms, which the Karaites regarded as divinely inspired prayers. Since prayer and biblical interpretation constituted the primary activities of the Mourners for Zion, a study of their liturgy will clarify their self-perceptions, hopes, and fears. Japheth’s Commentary on the Psalter seems to have been intended as a liturgical commentary; a short treatise on prayer included in his son Levi’s Code sketches the essential components of the daily liturgy itself. In Chapter Five, liturgy and commentary are correlated in order to establish the basic texts of Jerusalem Karaite prayer and the meaning with which they were invested.
A self-constituted community with a reformist agenda, the Karaites of tenth-century Jerusalem polemicized extensively against Rabbinic institutions. At the same time, they were acutely aware of the threat Christianity, and especially Islam, posed to Judaism in general. Chapter Six is devoted to inter-religious debates and their reflexes in Karaite Bible commentaries. Following Christian precedents, Muslim scholars assembled a collection of biblical testimonia to the truth of their prophet’s message which they presumably used in their missionary campaigns. While some Jewish authors, such as al-Qirqisànì, responded directly to these arguments, others, such as Japheth, crafted tacit, but no less effective replies. The chapter also demonstrates how certain of Japheth’s theological doctrines were likely shaped by polemical considerations.
Sectarian, unpublished, long-winded, and in Judeo-Arabic, the commentaries of tenth-century Karaites have, until recently, attracted little attention. Until serviceable editions and translations appear, they will remain relatively inaccessible. But in reality, they are neither alien nor irrelevant to the history of Jewish biblical interpretation. On the contrary—as the Epilogue argues—the classic Bible commentaries of twelfth- and thirteenth-century Spain and Provence, were inspired by works composed centuries earlier in the Islamic East by Rabbanites and Karaites. I hope that this book stimulates further interest in the writings of several remarkable scholars who shaped biblical studies over a thousand years ago.
Texts
Since very few of the commentaries have been published, I have included the original Judeo-Arabic of most of the passages cited as a separate section at the back of the book. These texts are not given in full critical editions, but rather as eclectic collations; I explain my editorial methods at the beginning of the section. Each text has been assigned a number, corresponding to the chapter in which it is discussed: 2.1, for example, refers to the first text discussed in Chapter 2 (Japheth b. Eli, Commentary on Leviticus 11:13–19). Since this comment is fairly long, I have divided it into paragraphs: 2.1.3 refers to the third paragraph of text 2.1. In the body of the book and the notes these numbers are always given in boldface.
Translations
Unless otherwise noted, all translations from Arabic and Hebrew are my own.
Transliteration
Hebrew has been transliterated according to the system used in the Association for Jewish Studies Review. Arabic transliteration follows the Encyclopaedia of Islam, with the exceptions of j for ¡ and q for ˚
Conventions
The names of medieval scholars are given in accordance with modern scholarly usage. Inevitably, there is some inconsistency, e.g., Ya' qùb al-Qirqisànì, but Japheth b. Eli. Biblical citations have often been translated according to the specific exegetical context in which they occur. In general, I have modeled my translations on the Revised Standard Version or quoted it verbatim, but I have drawn upon other translations as well, notably the New Jewish Publication Society version. English citations from the Babylonian Talmud and Midrash Rabbah follow the Soncino Press translations.
Portions of this book have been published elsewhere in different versions:
Chapter 1: This chapter is based in part on “Karaite Exegesis,” in Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation, vol. I/2, ed. Magne Saebø (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), 110–128.
Chapter 2: A portion of this chapter will appear as “May Karaites Eat Chicken?—Indeterminacy in Sectarian Halakhic Exegesis,” in Jewish Biblical Interpretation in a Comparative Context, ed. David Stern and Natalie Dohrmann (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press).
Chapter 4: A Hebrew version was published as 'Ve-qol ha-tor nishma' be-" arßeinu: peirushei ha-qara"im salmon ben yero˙am ve-yefet ben 'eli le-shir ha-shirim (“‘The Voice of the Turtledove Is Heard in Our Land’: The Commentaries of the Karaites Salmon ben Jeroham and Japheth ben Eli on the Song of Songs”), International Rennert Guest Lecture Series, Bar-Ilan University, 2001.
An English version appeared as “Karaite Commentaries on the Song of Songs from Tenth-Century Jerusalem,” in With Reverence for the Word: Medieval Scriptural Exegesis in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, ed. Jane Dammen McAuli ff e, Barry D. Wal fi sh, and Joseph W. Goering (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 51–69.
Chapter 5 first appeared as “The Shoshanim of Tenth-Century Jerusalem: Karaite Exegesis, Prayer, and Communal Identity,” in The Jews of Medieval Islam: Community, Society, and Identity, ed. D. Frank (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995), 199–245.
I thank the presses for their permission to publish this material.
I should like to thank those institutions and individuals who have made this work possible. This project began in England, where I held fellowships at the Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies and Wolfson College, Oxford. I am deeply grateful to both institutions for many years of support. During the past six years, I have found a most congenial home at the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Cultures of the Ohio State University. Both the Department and the Melton Center for Jewish Studies have generously supported my research. I have also received liberal grants from the Institute
of Jewish Studies, London and the Memorial Foundation for Jewish Culture. In spring 1998, I was the guest of the Ingeborg Rennert Center for Jerusalem Studies, Bar-Ilan University, where I presented some of my research; the Center graciously published that paper in Hebrew, which served as the basis for Chapter Four.
Most of the texts discussed here remain in manuscript. I read them on microfilm either at home or at the Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts [IMHM] of the Jewish National and University Library in Jerusalem. I am especially grateful to the Institute and its remarkable staff—who are as helpful as they are learned—for all their assistance. I should also like to thank the following Libraries for permitting me to consult their manuscripts and to publish passages from them: the British Library, London; the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, New York; the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris; the Russian National Library, St. Petersburg; and the Institute of Oriental Studies, St. Petersburg.
I am very pleased to continue my association with Brill, which now stretches back a decade. My warm thanks to Paul B. Fenton, Editor of the series Études sur le Judaïsme Médiéval, in which this volume appears. I should also like to thank Julian Deahl, Marcella Mulder, and Tanja Cowall, Editors at Brill, and Maribeth E. Siguenza, who typeset a complex text.
Finally, I should like to express my gratitude to those scholars who generously assisted me with this project. Haggai Ben-Shammai, Tamar Frank, Bernard R. Goldstein, Daniel J. Lasker, David Malkiel, Marina Rustow, Michael Schwarz, and Sarah Stroumsa all read the manuscript—in whole, in part, or in previous versions—and graciously offered numerous comments, suggestions, and criticisms. Meir Bar-Asher, Alan Cooper, Wilferd Madelung, Gonzalo Rubio-Pardo, and Michael Zwettler all responded promptly to specific queries. David Sklare brought manuscripts to my attention, checked readings for me, and answered many questions. Joseph Galron, Judaica and Hebraica Librarian at the Ohio State University, quickly and cheerfully obtained books at my request. Barry D. Walfish and Adena Tanenbaum made many valuable suggestions and proofread the entire manuscript. My heartfelt thanks to all of them.
My parents, Simon and Yakira Frank, have always taken a deep interest in my research. My wife, Adena Tanenbaum, has been immersed in it for years. They have supported me patiently, devotedly, and with good humor. This book is dedicated to them. “What is mine is yours.”
This page intentionally left blank
CHAPTER ONE
“SEARCH SCRIPTURE WELL”
The Karaites (qara "im,benei miqra"), Judaism’s oldest surviving sect, derive their name from the Hebrew word for Scripture and their identity from its interpretation.1 Denying the authority of the Rabbinic tradition, they originally sought to ground their laws and beliefs directly in the Bible. During the ninth century, the sect emerged in the Islamic East where its ideology was shaped by the surrounding religious and intellectual milieu. Quite possibly, the first Karaites found inspiration in the writings of earlier sectarians such as the Sadducees, although no conclusive evidence for such direct links has yet been discovered. During its earliest phase, the sect was selfconsciously scripturalist, insofar as this was possible. With the gradual establishment of an exegetical consensus, however, both a communal identity and a Karaite tradition were formed. Ultimately, there were (and continue to be) concessions even to Rabbanite tradition. All the same, Karaites have always professed great fidelity to the biblical text, consistently justifiying their practices and beliefs on scriptural grounds. Not surprisingly, their attacks on the Rabbinic tradition elicited harsh responses from leading Rabbanite authorities. Polemics between the two groups centered upon questions of legal interpretation. At the same time, the Karaites’ rationalistic, philologically oriented approach to the Bible bears strong affinities to the contextual or pesha † reading advocated by many leading Rabbanites. Alternately diverging and converging, Karaite and Rabbanite modes of exegesis have influenced each other significantly.2
1 On Karaites and Karaism generally, see: Heller and Nemoy, “Karaites” and Lasker, “Karaite Judaism.” For surveys of recent scholarship, see: Frank, “The Study of Medieval Karaism 1959–1989”; idem, “The Study of Medieval Karaism, 1989–1999”; Ben-Shammai, “Karaites and the Orient”; idem, “The Scholarly Study”; Lasker, Karaism and Jewish Studies; Polliack, “Medieval Karaism” and idem, Karaite Judaism.
2 Throughout this work, the word “Rabbanites” signifies those Jews who accept the authority of the rabbinic tradition or Oral Law (torah she-be'al peh) embodied in the Talmudim of Babylonia and the Land of Israel, the midrashim, and the writings of later rabbinic authorities, notably the Heads of the academies ( ge "onim) in the Islamic East. For our purposes, a Rabbanite, then, is a non-Karaite Jew.
The following chapters seek to illuminate Karaite exegesis in its formative period, the tenth century.3 In order to provide some context, the present chapter surveys the major exegetes and their approaches, from Anan until the end of the eleventh century, when the Karaite center in Jerusalem, together with the entire Jewish community, was destroyed by the Crusaders.4 We close with a brief study of the well-known dictum, “Search Scripture well, and do not rely on my opinion”; its two component phrases convey the scripturalist imperative that drove the early Karaite exegetical enterprise.
Anan b. David and Daniel al-Qùmisì
Anan b. David (Iraq, mid-eighth century) is usually connected with the origins of Karaism. For reasons that remain obscure, he came to reject the rabbinic tradition, deriving a new, independent legal system (halakhah) directly from Scripture. Well-versed in the literature of the rabbis, Anan composed a code in Aramaic and employed rabbinic hermeneutics that largely depended on analogies between words and phrases ( gezerah shavah,heqqesh). The laws he promulgated, however, differed sharply and self-consciously from those established by the ancient rabbis. To take one example, where the Rabbanites permitted pre-existing fires to continue burning in Jewish homes on the Sabbath, Anan prohibited fire altogether by drawing an analogy between the words teva' aru (“you shall [not] kindle,” Exodus 35:3) and ta' asu (“you shall [not] perform,” Exodus 20:10), which both begin with the letter tav. 5 This decision, lacking any contextual rationale, may hardly be deemed “scripturalist”; it points, rather, to the promotion of alternative midreshei halakhah. The strictness of this particular law also typifies Anan’s halakhic outlook; he may be regarded as the founder of a rival legal school (Ar. madhhab) rather than atrue sect.6 Certainly, some early Rabbanites regarded him in this light.7
3 For an important overview, see now Polliack, “Major Trends,” nicely complemented by the studies collected in Khan, Exegesis and Grammar.
4 On the crusader conquest and the destruction of the Jerusalem community, see Gil, A History of Palestine, 826–37.
5 See: Harkavy, Zikhron la-rishonim, 69 f.; Nemoy, Karaite Anthology, 17–18; Poznanski, “Anan,” 174–76.
6 Ben-Shammai, “The Karaite Controversy,” 20.
7 So, e.g., Natronai Gaon (ninth c.); see Ben-Shammai, ibid., 18.
His followers, on the other hand—the Ananites—constituted one of several Jewish sects that flourished in the Islamic East under the Abbasid Caliphate.
The Karaites emerged in the same period, either as an offshoot of the Ananites or as an independent scripturalist group. Apparently, the two sects coalesced during the tenth and eleventh centuries. Karaite writings from this period frequently refer to Ananite positions, which are often rejected. All the same, Anan was still regarded as “the first to reveal the whole truth about the laws.”8 Among the early sectarian leaders who came after Anan, Benjamin b. Moses alNahàwandì (first half of the ninth century) is the most frequently cited by later Karaite authorities.9 But the key figure in early Karaite history was Daniel al-Q ù mis ì (or al-D à magh à n ì ), who originally admired Anan but later despised his teachings. Al-Qùmisì was the first Karaite to polemicize explicitly against Rabbanite Judaism and to advocate real scripturalism.10 For ideological reasons, he emigrated to Jerusalem from his native Tabaristan (northern Iran) during the last quarter of the ninth century. Renouncing the sinfulness of Diaspora Judaism which he blamed upon a corrupt rabbinic leadership, he joined “the remnant, who come from (every) land to Jerusalem in penitence, and in order to observe the religious commandments before (the advent of) the time of trouble.”11 While he was not much cited by later authors, his philological and prognostic approach to Scripture influenced the Karaite "avelei ßiyyon (“Mourners for Zion”) of tenth-century Jerusalem. Our main sources for his teachings are writings ascribed to him and references in Ya' qùb al-Qirqisànì’s Kitàb al-anwàr wa’l-Maràqib
8 See al-Qirqisànì, Kitàb al-anwàr, I.2.14, vol. 1, p. 13, lines 3–4 (trans. Lockwood, 103). Cf. Salmon b. Yerù˙ìm, Commentary on Psalms (Marwick) 69:1, p. 89, lines 3–6. On the connections between the two groups see esp. Ben-Shammai, “Between Ananites and Karaites.” See also Gil, “The Origins of the Karaites.”
9 On Benjamin, see Mann, Texts and Studies, 2:11–12, 17 and Nemoy, Karaite Anthology, 21–29.
10 See al-Qirqisànì, Kitàb al-anwàr I.1.3, vol. 1, pp. 4–5 (trans. Lockwood, 94–95); Ben-Shammai, “The Karaite Controversy,” 23–24; idem, “Return to the Scriptures,” 328–30. On the historical background to Daniel’s activities, see idem, “Fragments.”
11 See Daniel al-Qùmisì’s comment on Joel 3:5 (Pitron, 30). The passage has been noted by Shohat, “The Opinions,” 10. Shohat notes important correspondences between the Pitron and the “Tract of an Early Karaite Settler” published by Mann and reedited by Nemoy as “The Pseudo-Qùmisìan Sermon”; see p. 127 and n. 11. Though cautious about ascribing the work to Daniel, Nemoy acknowledges that it “palpably belongs to a very early period of Karaite history” (50).
Al-Qùmisì is the earliest Jewish exegete whose works have survived to any real degree.12 Although he was a prolific author, only his commentary on Minor Prophets (Pitron sheneim ' asar) has been preserved virtually intact; fragments of other works have also been recovered.13 Composed in Hebrew, these are not midrashim but true commentaries. While al-Qùmisì refers (anonymously) to other scholars, he projects a clear authorial voice and provides unambiguous interpretations.14 He proceeds verse by verse, frequently glossing the text in Arabic and offering clear, concise explanations.15 Most strikingly, he interprets the biblical prophecies prognostically, referring many of them to his own time. Al-Qùmisì may well have derived this type of exegesis from ancient sectarian writings that circulated in the Middle Ages; we will discuss its importance to the Jerusalem Karaites below.
According to Ya' qùb al-Qirqisànì, al-Qùmisì advocated speculation and research in religious matters, constantly rethinking his postions and even instructing his disciples to correct copies of his works accordingly. At the same time, he was apparently “dissatisfied with reason, disowning it and frequently criticizing its practitioners in his books.”16 Al-Qùmisì drew a distinction between the rationalistic, philo-
12 A two-folio fragment of a commentary on Genesis has recently been attributed to Dàwùd b. Marwàn al-Muqammaß, an older contemporary of al-Qùmisì’s; see n. 29 below.
13 Daniel al-Qùmisì, Pitron. On this work, see: Markon, “Daniel al-Kumisi ein Karäischer Schrifterklärer”; idem, “The Karaite Daniel al-Kumisi”; and Shohat, “The Opinions.” Al-Qùmisì’s authorship has been disputed by Marwick, “Daniel al-Qùmisì and the Pitròn,” but his arguments have been convincingly rebutted by Wieder, The Judean Scrolls, 265–69. For al-Qùmisì’s Commentary on Psalms, see Marmorstein, “Fragments” and idem, “Seridim.” For the Commentary on Daniel, see BenShammai, “Fragments of Daniel al-Qùmisì’s Commentary.” On the Code, see ch.2 below. Many exegetical fragments have been attributed to al-Qùmisì; see Mann, Texts and Studies, 2:8–18. Some of these ascriptions have been questioned; see, e.g., Zucker, Rav Saadya Gaon’s Translation, 182–84, n. 712. For recent discussions of al-Qùmisì’s exegesis, see: Ben-Shammai, “Fragments”; Polliack, “On the Question of the Pesher’s Influence”; idem, “Major Trends,” 372–88
14 See, e.g., his explicit rejection of an interpretation ad Jon 1:1 (Pitron, 41): “Some people said... but this is not the case.” For other indications of an authorial voice see, e.g., the comments on Zeph 2:5 (ibid., 57): “...which I explained in the Book of Nahum” and Zech 1:8 (ibid., 62): “In my humble opinion...” (ki-me"at da'ati ).
15 For Arabic glosses, see, e.g.: Pitron, p. 26, nn. 5, 28 (Joel 1:4,7); p. 36, n. 7 (Amos 6:3); p. 40, nn. 8, 9 (Obad 14); p. 42, n. 16 (Jon 4:10); p. 44, n. 1 (Mic2:3). Occasional Persian glosses reflect Daniel’s place of origin; see, e.g., Pitron, p. 60 (Hag 1:6).
16 See al-Qirqisànì, Kitàb al-anwàr I.1.3, vol. 1, pp. 4–5 (trans. Lockwood, 94);
logical interpretation of Scripture (which was desirable) and the study of alien wisdom (which could be dangerous).17 His disdain for Anan probably derived from the latter’s unrestrained use of analogy in deriving new laws, an approach that scarcely seemed to differ from Rabbinic modes of exegesis.
Al-Qùmisì attacks Rabbinic Judaism for devising a man-made tradition which he brands mißvat "anashim melummadah, “commandment of men learned by rote” (Isaiah 29:13).18 He also rejects the rabbinic notion that Scripture possesses multiple meanings. Unlike the Rabbanites, who maintain that the Torah may be interpreted in forty-nine ways, he insists that the task of the honest interpreter is to discover the one correct interpretation of every biblical verse through the exercise of reason.19 While uncertainties are inevitable, the Teacher of Righteousness will arrive at the End of Days to clarify all ambiguities. This appeal to the Teacher, whom al-Qùmisì identifies elsewhere with Elijah, is strongly reminiscent of Qumran pesher. 20 And the designation of Elijah as the final arbiter at the End of Days is familiar from rabbinic sources. Where al-Qùmisì parts company with his contemporaries, however, is in denying them the possibility of multiple, conflicting traditions.
see also I.18, vol. 1, pp. 58–59 (trans. Lockwood, 151). Al-Qirqisànì also states that al-Qùmisì was the last to establish a school of thought (Ar. madhhab), compose a book, and gain a following; see ibid., I.2.20, vol. 1, p. 14, lines 8–10 (trans. Lockwood, 104).
17 See the fragments of al-Qùmisì’s Kitàb al-taw˙ìd (“Book on the Divine Unity”) in Zucker, Rav Saadya Gaon’s Translation, 176–78, esp. 177, lines 2–6 (trans. p. 180, lines 7 ff.), and 480–85.
18 See, e.g., his comments on Hos 1:9 (Pitron, 1), 5:11 (ibid., 8), and 6:1–2 (ibid., 9). On the Karaite use of the phrase, see Wieder, The Judean Scrolls, 259–63. The phrase recurs in Kitàb al-taw˙ìd; see Zucker, ibid., 482–85.
19 For the Rabbanite notion that the Torah can be interpreted in forty-nine ways, see Bacher, Exegetische Terminologie, 2:157, s.v. “panim,” citing inter alia ySanhedrin 22a and Pesiqta Rabbati 21, fol. 101a. (According to Numbers Rabbah 13:16, fol. 54, col. c, the number is seventy.) In his comment on Mal 2:9 (Pitron, 78), al-Qùmisì writes: “And so I have set My face against you (so that) you are despised and abased in the eyes of the nations, for you have promoted non-literal interpretations of the Torah (innakum rafa'tum al-ta" wìlàt fì ’l-tawrìya), saying that there are forty-nine ways ( panim) of interpreting the Torah.” It should also be said that his rendering of the biblical expression nasa panim (“show partiality”) is neither idiomatic nor literal. For his statement that “every word in the Bible has but one true interpretation,” see the comment on Ps 74:6, cited below, p. 45 n. 45.
20 On the Teacher of Righteousness, see below, ibid.
Polemics Between Saadya Gaon and Karaite Scholars
The Karaite attacks on the Rabbinic tradition led them to criticize the great Rabbanite institutions of the day: the Exilarchate, the Gaonate, and the Academies, together with the literary instruments of geonic authority, the Mishnah and Talmud. The polemic between the Karaites and Rabbanites reached its climax in the harsh exchanges between the greatest of the Babylonian Geonim, Saadya b. Joseph (882–942), and several sectarian scholars. The Gaon’s views are attested in his polemical poem “"E≤≤a meshali” (“I take up my parable”), fragments of Judeo-Arabic tracts, and lengthy citations in the works of his opponents. The Karaite position is abundantly documented in the works of such scholars as Ya' qùb al-Qirqisànì, Salmon b. Yerù˙ìm, and Japheth b. Eli.21
In Saadya’s view, the Rabbis did not produce a new body of halakhah; rather, they codified and set down an Oral Law which had existed since Moses’ day. This Oral Law, he maintains, is essential to any proper understanding of the Law, particularly of the ceremonial commandments. Only tradition can provide knowledge of the “revealed” laws and their details, argues the Gaon in the introduction to his commentary on Genesis. Thus, the Bible does not indicate the required number of fringes to be worn (Numbers 15:38), the dimensions of the booths in which Jews are to dwell (Leviticus 23:42), the nature of the labor prohibited on the Sabbath (Exodus 20:10), or even the order of prayer. These laws are all mandated by the Tradition that preserves the practices of Moses and the Israelites who received the Sinaitic revelation.22 In rebutting Saadya’s arguments, Salmon maintains that the details of some commandments were not precisely prescribed because they were left to the individual’s discretion. Other laws can be derived directly from the Bible by rational means. Al-Qirqisànì adds that the Rabbanites are
21 See Poznanski, “The Anti-Karaite Writings”; idem, “The Karaite Literary Opponents of Saadiah Gaon in the Tenth Century”; Hirschfeld, “The Arabic Portion of the Cairo Genizah”; Harkavy, “Fragments of anti-Karaite writings”; Brody, The Geonim of Babylonia, ch. 6, esp. 96–99. A more idiomatic translation of “"E≤≤a meshali” might be “I hold forth”; the word mashal in the title likely alludes to its poetic form. The work was edited by Lewin, “‘"E≤≤a meshali’ le-Rasag”; for a list of fragments published subsequently, see Fleischer, “Saadya Gaon’s Place,” 11, n. 28. The poem inspired a Karaite response in verse, Salmon b. Yeru˙ìm’s Sefer Mil˙amot Ha-Shem 22 He advances seven arguments; see Commentary on Genesis, 13–15 (Ar.), 180–84 (Heb.); Harris, How Do We Know This, 76–77. See further below, p. 38.
inconsistent: although they wear fringes, they omit the blue cord mandated by Scripture; although their tradition prohibits certain activities on the Sabbath, it permits others in direct violation of the biblical text. Both Karaites insist that the Bible contains liturgical instruction and specific prayers (e.g., Daniel 6:11, 9:3 ff.).23
There is an irony here. While the sectarians had originally attacked the Rabbis’ derivation of new laws from the Bible by means of certain hermeneutic principles, they in turn elaborated their own body of exegetical rules.24 For their part, many Rabbanites—following the lead of Saadya Gaon—came to downplay the role of midrash halakhah, insisting instead on the wholesale acceptance of the Oral Law.25 And though the Karaites continued to deny the binding authority of the Rabbinic tradition, they inevitably came to accept the force of their own received teachings which they dubbed sevel ha-yerushah (“the burden of the inheritance”).26 The two groups would soon differ far more sharply over the authority of their respective legal traditions than over the methods by which their laws were derived from the Bible.
Saadya and his Karaite adversaries lived in an Islamic environment and Arabic culture permeated their works. While Saadya was an important Hebrew poet and at least a few Karaites composed verse, these scholars wrote their prose in Arabic.27 Familiar with contemporary Islamic and Christian writings, they developed genres that were new to the Jewish literary tradition: dictionaries, grammars, codes, and theological treatises. Aimed at a sophisticated Jewish audience that was losing interest in traditional Hebrew and Aramaic texts, the new works fully exploited Arabic rhetorical models, stylistic devices, and technical terminology.28
This enterprise gave birth to the first true Jewish commentaries on the Bible. Unlike midrashim, these works project clear authorial
23 Salmon ben Yerù˙ìm, Wars of the Lord, 47 (trans. Nemoy, Karaite Anthology, 80–82); al-Qirqisànì, Kitàb al-anwàr, II.14.2–3 and II.15, vol. 1, pp. 124–25, 128–32.
24 Some of these are identical with rabbinic hermeneutical principles; see alQirqisànì, Kitàb al-anwàr, IV, vol. 2, pp. 343–470, trans. Vajda, “Études sur Qirqisànì,” and idem, “Études sur Qirqisànì, IV.”
25 Harris, How Do We Know This, chap. 4.
26 Wieder, “Three Terms for Tradition.”
27 For a recent assessment of Saadya as a poet, see Fleischer, “Saadya Gaon’s Place.”
28 See Drory, The Emergence of Hebrew-Arabic Literary Contacts.
voices and offer systematic interpretations. They include programmatic introductions (muqaddimàt, ßudùr), complete Arabic translations of the biblical text, and embedded excursuses on a wide variety of topics. Rationalistically and philologically inclined, the authors also delineate a scriptural book’s principal themes and seek to define its central message. These works were likely modeled in part on Christian Bible commentaries. According to al-Qirqisànì, a Syrian Jew, Dàwùd b. Marwàn al-Muqammaß (fl. mid-late ninth century) translated Syriac commentaries on Genesis and Ecclesiastes into Arabic. Al-Muqammaß had converted to Christianity and studied with the theologian Nànà (i.e., Nonnus) in Nisibis, before reverting to his ancestral faith. Presumably, he adapted his Arabic versions of Christian texts for a Jewish audience. Recently, a small fragment of a commentary on Genesis has been plausibly attributed to al-Muqammaß—perhaps all that survives of his exegetical endeavors.29 Saadya Gaon was unquestionably the first to write original Bible commentaries on a large scale, but the tenth-century Karaite exegetes in Iraq and Jerusalem far surpassed him in the volume, if not the quality, of their compositions.30
Ya
'qùb al-Qirqisànì
Ya' qùb al-Qirqisànì was the leading Karaite scholar in the first half of the tenth century. Only a small part of the many works that he composed in his native Iraq have survived: his code, The Book of Lights and Watchtowers (Kitàb al-anwàr wa’l-maràqib); portions of his Book of Gardens and Parks (Kitàb al-riyà∂ wa’l-˙adà"iq), a commentary on the
29 On al-Muqammaß and his exegesis, see Stroumsa, “From the Earliest Known Judaeo-Arabic Commentary on Genesis” and the literature cited there; the article includes an edition and translation of TS Ar. 52.184, a two-folio fragment from the Cairo Genizah. See also Stroumsa, “The Impact of Syriac Tradition.” For alQirqisànì’s biographical notice on al-Muqammaß, see Kitàb al-anwàr, I.8.5, vol. 1, p. 44, lines 9–16 (trans. Lockwood, 137).
30 The literature on Saadya’s exegetical activity is far too large to survey here. For now, see: Brody, The Geonim of Babylonia, 300–15; Ben-Shammai, “The Exegetical and Philosophical Writing of Saadya Gaon”; and Rosenthal, “Saadya Gaon: An Appreciation of His Biblical Exegesis.” Saadya’s introductions to his commentaries have elicited considerable interest; see: Rivlin, “Haqdamot Rasag”; Ben-Shammai, “Saadya’s Introduction to Isaiah”; idem, “Saadya’s Introduction to Daniel”; Sokolow, “Saadiah Gaon’s Prolegomenon to Psalms”; and Simon, Four Approaches, ch. 1. On Saadya’s tafsìr, see Zucker, Rav Saadya Gaon’s Translation of the Torah
non-legal portions of the Pentateuch; and fragments of a separate commentary on Genesis (Tafsìr bereishit).31 Like Saadya, al-Qirqisànì wrote in Arabic, the lingua franca of the Islamic East whose rich technical vocabulary admirably suited his needs. He regarded his code and commentaries as part of a single exegetical project, encompassing the legal and narrative sections of Scripture. His rationalism and broad learning are apparent throughout his oeuvre. He cites both Jewish (Rabbanite and Karaite) and non-Jewish authorities and applies secular knowledge to the resolution of religious and exegetical problems.
Carefully structured, Kitàb al-anwàr includes a lengthy methodological discussion in which al-Qirqisànì sets forth the sources of legal authority, the manner in which the Bible presents legislation, and the various modes of legal reasoning. Both Karaites and Ananites, he explains, derive their knowledge of the law from three sources: Scripture, analogy, and consensus. While the ancient rabbis accepted these legal roots, their modern successors deny the validity of analogy since they find that many of their practices are undermined when they are subjected to critical reasoning.32 Al-Qirqisànì’s affirmation of analogy (qiyàs) as a means of constructive legislation leads him to consider the hermeneutics of classical rabbinic halakhah, the so-called Thirteen Principles of Rabbi Ishmael enunciated at the beginning of the Sifra to Leviticus.33 Examining each of the principles in turn, he accepts some—e.g., qal va-˙omer or reasoning a fortiori —while rejecting others (e.g., gezerah shavah, inference from similar phrases). Though he does not reject several of these rules per se, he objects to their application by the Rabbanites.34 As a general rule, he asserts that all precepts should be understood according to their plain sense unless this would express something manifestly false or would imply a contradiction:
31 Al-Qirqisànì, Kitàb al-anwàr. For translated sections see: Nemoy, Karaite Anthology, 42–53; idem, “Al-Qirqisànì’s Account”; Chiesa and Lockwood, Ya' qùb al-Qirqisànì on Jewish Sects and Christianity; and Vajda, “Études sur Qirqisànì, I–V”. For the most part, the commentaries remain unedited and unpublished. Ben-Shammai, “The Doctrines,” includes extensive excerpts and analyses. See also: Chiesa, “A New Fragment”; idem, Creazione e caduta, esp. 41–47; idem, Filologia storica, 1:166–86; Chiesa and Lockwood, “Al-Qirqisànì’s Newly-found Commentary.”
32 Kitàb al-anwàr, IV.0, vol. 2, p. 343; see Vajda, “Études, III,” 63.
33 He refers to them as the thirteen “gates” or “categories”. On the principles of Rabbi Ishmael see Kasher, “The Interpretation of Scripture,” 584–86.
34 Vajda, “Études, III,” 73–74.
This principle applies not only to the precepts but also to all biblical texts, including narratives (akhbàr) and others. We have already provided certain explanations of this matter. In effect, were it permissible to attribute a hidden (bà†in) meaning to certain precepts—different from the plain sense—without there being any necessity of doing so, we would have grounds for doing this with all the commandments and they would become invalid, their true meaning becoming unknown, since the hidden meaning (al-bà†in), i.e., the figurative interpretation (al-ta" wìl ), might be extended in any direction, developing according to the wishes of each interpreter. This would obviously be the ultimate perversion; there is no need to elaborate upon it.35
At best, allegorization is a last resort. At worst, it represents a threat to the community whose very existence depends upon a unified understanding of Scripture. For Karaites this means seeking a “plain sense” (Ωàhir) in both legal and non-legal contexts. As an example of unacceptable fi gurative interpretation, al-Qirqis à n ì singles out Anan’s exegesis of the commandment “You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk.”36 Relating the injunction to the preceding clause in Exodus 23:19 and 34:26 (“the first of the first fruits of your ground you shall bring into the house of the Lord your God”), Anan takes the phrase as an injunction against delaying the bringing of the first fruits to the Temple by leaving them to ripen in the ground. AlQirqisànì points to the third verse (Deuteronomy 14:21), arguing that its context (“You shall not eat anything that dies of itself...”) will admit only a literal interpretation, viz., a prohibition of eating flesh. Now, since the expression per se is perfectly intelligible without allegorization, there is no reason for doing so and it must be taken literally in all three instances.37
The introduction to Kitàb al-riyà∂ also contains important programmatic statements explaining al-Qirqisànì’s motivations, exegetical aims, and methods.38 Arguing that revealed truths can only be ascertained by reason, he points to Solomon as a model religious philosopher and cites numerous verses as mandates for speculation.
35 Kitàb al-anwàr, IV.22.1, vol. 2, pp. 385–86; See Vajda, “Études, III,” 74–75.
36 Kitàb al-anwàr, IV.22.2, vol. 2, p. 386; See Vajda, “Études, III,” 75.
37 Cf. the extended discussion in Kitàb al-anwàr, vol. 5, pp. 1226–27 and alQirqisànì’s criticism of rabbinic exegesis, ibid., 1213. Cf. Zucker, Rav Saadya Gaon’s Translation, 161.
38 For the text, see Hirschfeld, Qirqisani Studies, 39–59 (mistitled Tafsir Bereishit). For partial translations with notes, see: Nemoy, Karaite Anthology, 53–68; Vajda, “Du prologue de Qirqisànì”; and Chiesa, “Dai ‘Principi dell’esegesi biblica’ di Qirqisânî.”
Isaiah 41:20, for example, supports the inference of a Creator from the observation of His creation—the standard argument by analogy in Islamic theology. And Psalm 19:8–10 assures us of the Law’s intrinsic rationality, truth, and clarity, hallmarks of its perfection. Having demonstrated the need for religious speculation, al-Qirqisànì sets forth thirty-seven exegetical premises;39 these include: (1) that Moses wrote the Pentateuch; (2) that Scripture must be interpreted literally, except where this would entail contradiction;40 (3) that the Hebrew language is primordial; (4) that anthropomorphism is a means of accommodation (“Scripture speaks in human language”);41 (5) that the Bible clearly labels all false statements as such; (6) that biblical dialogue may be recorded either in the original language (e.g., Aramaic) or in Hebrew translation; (7) that the details of a given narrative may be furnished from several biblical accounts; (8) that biblical style admits both prolixity and brevity; and (9) that events are not always presented in chronological order.42
Al-Qirqisànì’s openness to contemporary speculative trends obviously influenced his exegesis. In his Commentary on Genesis 1, for example, he describes the world in terms of bodies, accidents, and substances and posits four principal, created elements—earth, air, water, and fire—from which the rest of the world was fashioned. He refers the biblical “heavens” (shamayim) to the philosophers’ spheres. And he employs the well-known argument from design in demonstrating the createdness of the world.43 He also discussed exegetical matters with at least one Christian ecclesiastic.44 The Iraqi environment in which al-Qirqisànì lived clearly fostered such scholarly exchanges; the main stage of Karaite activity, however, was shifting westward.
39 The text breaks off in the middle of the twenty-fourth.
40 Cf. Saadya Gaon, Kitàb al-Amànàt 7:2, trans. Rosenblatt, The Book of Beliefs and Opinions, 265–67.
41 Al-Qirqisànì cites the rabbinic dictum dibberah torah ki-leshon benei adam (bBerakhot 31b). On its significance in rabbinic literature see Kasher, “Interpretation,” 588–89.
42 Cf. the rabbinic "ein muqdam u-me" u˙ar ba-torah (bPesa˙im 6b); on its significance in rabbinic literature see Kasher, “Interpretation,” 590–91. For al-Qirqisànì’s application of the rule, see his commentary to Gen 12:4 in Chiesa and Lockwood, “Newly-found Commentary,” 173.
43 See Ben-Shammai, “The Doctrines,” vol. 1, chap. 5 for a full discussion. For al-Qirqisànì’s view concerning the four elements, see ibid., 120–22.
44 He refers respectfully to Isho' zekha, bishop of Ukbara; see Kitàb al-anwàr, III.6.16, vol. 2, p. 220, and Brock, “Jewish Traditions,” 230. The impact of Christian writings upon Jewish exegetes writing in Arabic requires further study; for now see Chiesa, Creazione e caduta dell’uomo, and Stroumsa, “The Impact of Syriac Tradition.”
The Jerusalem School (ca. 950–1099)
During the second half of the tenth century, Jerusalem emerged as the Karaites’ spiritual and intellectual center.45 Since al-Qù misì ’s time, Mourners for Zion had settled in the Holy City; now, as the community became fi rmly established, Karaite scholarly activity flourished. Seeking to persuade Rabbanites and encourage their cosectarians, leading figures like Salmon b. Yerù˙ìm, Japheth b. Eli, David b. Abraham al-Fàsì, Sahl b. Maßlia˙ and David b. Boaz produced a large body of Judeo-Arabic literature—including commentaries, codes, and grammatical works—most of it exegetical in nature.46 Their Bible commentaries are complex and multi-tiered, embodying substantial prefaces, complete Arabic translations of the scriptural text, and verse-by-verse explications.47 Much of this corpus is extant in manuscript, awaiting publication and analysis.
Salmon b. Yerù˙ìm, Japheth b. Eli, and Sahl b. Maßlia˙
Active around the middle of the tenth-century, Salmon b. Yerù˙ìm is chiefly remembered for the versified Hebrew polemic he directed against Saadya Gaon.48 But he also wrote commentaries on the Psalms, Song of Songs, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and Esther.49
45 On the community, its ideology, and leadership, see: Ben-Sasson, “The Karaite Community”; Ben-Shammai, “The Karaites”; idem, “New Data”; idem, “The Location”; Erder, “The Negation of Exile”; idem, “The Mourners”; Gil, A History of Palestine, 777–820; Mann, Texts and Studies, 2:3–120; Poznanski, “Reshit”; idem, “The Karaite Literary Opponents of Saadiah Gaon in the Tenth Century,” 220–50; Walfish, “The Mourners of Zion”; Wieder, The Judean Scrolls.
46 Salmon, Japheth, and Sahl will be discussed below. David al-Fàsì was a lexicographer and exegete, active during the late tenth century. See Kitàb jàmi' al-alfàΩ, with an extensive introduction by Skoss; Marwick, “A First Fragment”; and Maman, “The Lexical Element.” On David b. Boaz, see EJ 5:1349.
47 Karaite Bible translations diverge markedly from Saadya’s classicizing style, often tending towards a slavish literalism. On their singular character, see Polliack, “Medieval Karaite Views,” and idem, The Karaite Tradition
48 See Salmon b. Yeru˙ìm, Sefer mil˙amot ha-shem. For a translated selection, see Nemoy, Karaite Anthology, 69–82.
49 These are all extant; see: Salmon b. Yerù˙ìm, Commentary on Psalms (Marwick); idem, Commentary on Psalms (Alobaidi); Shunary, “Salmon Ben Yeruham’s Commentary”; Vajda, “Le Psaume VIII”; idem, “La Péricope”; Salmon b. Yerù˙ìm, Commentary on Lamentations (Feuerstein); Marwick, “Studies”; Ben-Shammai, “Poetic Works and Lamentations”; Salmon b. Yerù˙ìm, Commentary on Ecclesiastes; and Vajda, Deux com-
Internal references would seem to indicate, remarkably, that the first three were composed during 955–56.50 In choosing which books he would explicate, he seems to have been guided by specific communal needs. Rather than attempting a commentary on the entire Bible or even the Pentateuch, he selected books that held special significance for the "avelei ßiyyon: the Psalms and Lamentations provided the community’s main liturgical texts; the Song of Songs and Daniel were both regarded as prognostic works containing information concerning the imminent End of Days; Ecclesiastes and Proverbs furnished theological and ethical guidance.
Salmon was more a compiler than an original exegete. While he mentions the efforts of earlier anonymous commentators disparagingly, he operates within an established tradition. The Introduction to his commentary on Psalms is devoted to justifying the Karaites’ choice of the Psalter as their main prayer book over the Rabbanite siddur championed by Saadya. Against Saadya, he argues that David was not the actual author of every Psalm but rather that he compiled the Psalter; Moses (Psalm 90), Solomon (Psalms 72, 127), Jeduthun and Asaph (Psalm 77), and the sons of Korah (Ps 44) all composed prayers via inspiration. For the Mourners, the Psalms were prophetic compositions intended by their ancient authors not only for the Temple service but also as prayers for future generations, i.e., for the period of Exile which they now experienced.51 Salmon’s work, therefore, is really a liturgical commentary for contemporary worshipers.52 The commentary on Lamentations goes even further: it apparently embodies the community’s liturgy of mourning and includes Hebrew dirges and litanies.53 All the same, Salmon’s works do betray a distinctive authorial voice, advancing criticisms of earlier scholars and suggesting preferred interpretations. They also feature
mentaires. The commentary on Song of Songs is discussed below, ch. 4. For the commentary on Esther, see Wechsler, “An Early Karaite Commentary,” 106–107, and n. 25. Salmon’s commentaries on the books of Job, Proverbs, Daniel, and Isaiah have apparently not survived.
50 See Poznanski, “Karaite Miscellanies,” p. 688, nn. 2–4 and Marwick, “Studies,” p. 319, nn. 20 and 21.
51 Shunary, “Salmon Ben Yeruham’s Commentary,” and Simon, Four Approaches, 59–71.
52 Japheth ben Eli’s commentary on the Psalter had much the same function; see below, ch. 5.
53 Ben-Shammai, “Poetic Works and Lamentations.”
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
—— Royal Newfoundland, at Malden, vi. 312.
—— First West India (colored), at New Orleans, viii. 354; employed as skirmishers, 372, 373.
—— Fifth West India (colored) at New Orleans, viii. 354; in the action on the west bank, 371.
Ingersoll, Charles Jared, author of a tragedy, i. 123; member of Congress from Pennsylvania, attacks Granger, vii. 400; criticises Calhoun’s plan for a bank, viii. 253; calls for previous question on the bank bill, 257, 258; declares the war successful, 278, 279.
Ingersoll, Jared, ii. 259.
Ingham, Samuel Delucenna, member of Congress from Pennsylvania, opposes Calhoun’s plan of a national bank, viii. 251; in the Fourteenth Congress, ix. 107; supports protective tariff, 114; on committee of internal improvement, 148.
Innis, Judge, iii. 274; denies Daveiss’ motion against Burr, 278; humiliated by Daveiss and Marshall, 293.
Inns of New England and New York, i. 21. Inquisitiveness, American, i. 55.
Insane, the, treatment of, in 1800, i. 128.
Insurance, rates of British marine, in 1814, viii. 197–201; ix. 43. Interior Department, recommended by Madison, ix. 144. Internal improvements, Jefferson’s recommendation of a fund for, iii. 2, 346; iv. 364; his anxiety to begin, iii. 19; Gallatin’s scheme of, 20; Gallatin’s report on, iv. 364; bill for, ix. 149–151; vetoed, 151, 169.
Invisibles, the, v. 363.
Ireland, coast of, under the dominion of American privateers, viii. 197.
Irving, Peter, editor of the “Morning Chronicle,” i. 121. Irving, Washington, i. 110; his “History of New York,” ix. 209–212, 238; his account of Allston, 214.
Isle aux Noix, British force at, viii. 26.
Isle aux Poix, British base in Lake Borgne, viii. 337, 338. Izard, George, major-general in U. S. army, his history, vii. 407; takes command at Plattsburg in May, 1814, viii. 27; his report on intercourse with the enemy, 93; fortifies Plattsburg, 97, 98, 108; suggests moving toward the St. Lawrence, 98; ordered to move, 98; his remonstrance, 99; ordered to Sackett’s Harbor, marches Aug. 29, 1814, 100, 113; arrives at Batavia, September 27, 114; his apparent loyalty, 114; moves on Chippawa, October 13, 115; his reports of October 16 and 23, 115, 116; goes into winter quarters, 116; his mortification, 116; recommends Brown to command at Niagara, 117; offers to resign, 117, 118; his career at an end, 118; his effectives, 217.
Jackson, Andrew, in 1800, i. 54; his devotion to Burr, iii. 221, 258; his unauthorized order of Oct. 4, 1806, to the Tennessee militia, 258; undertakes the building of boats, etc., for Burr, 274; to be instructed against Burr, 284; requires disavowals from Burr, 287; his letter to Claiborne, 288, 317; his quarrel with Adair, 288; at Richmond, attacks Jefferson, 460;
ordered with two thousand men to support the seizure of Florida, vii. 206, 207; ordered to dismiss his force, 209; returns to Tennessee, 210, 216; recalls his force into service, 235; penetrates northern Alabama, 236; attacks Talishatchee, 237; relieves Talladega, 238; abandoned by his men, 239; his campaign to Emuckfaw, 245–248; his treatment of Cocke and Woods, 252, 253; captures the Horse-shoe, 254–256; his treaty with the Creeks, 260, 261; appointed major-general in the U. S. army, 410, 411; helpless with militia, viii. 219; his drafts on the Treasury, 283; appointed to command military district No. 7, 317; arrives at Mobile Aug. 15, 1814, 318; attacks Pensacola, 317–330; occupies Mobile Point, 319, 322; his proclamations to the people of Louisiana, 324, 325; his neglect of New Orleans, 325–334; leaves Mobile November 22, 331; arrives at New Orleans December 2, 333; his military resources, 333, 334; goes down the river December 4, 335; hurries back to the city December 15, 336; surprised December 23, 339; his measures of defence compared with Winder’s, 340–343; his military resources at New Orleans, 344–346; his night attack of December 23, 346–351; his entrenchments, 352, 354, 355; his artillery, 358, 361; contrasted with Pakenham, 353; his lines at New Orleans, 368–371; his force, 373, 374;
his account of the rout on the west bank, 377, 378; Adair’s comments on, 379; contented to let the British escape, 382; his remarks on the surrender of Fort Bowyer, 384; retained on peace establishment, ix. 88; his arbitrary conduct at New Orleans, 89.
Jackson, Mrs. F. J. v. 115, 157.
Jackson, Francis James, his reputation, ii. 360; v. 96; British envoy to Denmark, to demand the delivery of the Danish fleet, iv. 64; Lord Eldon’s anecdote concerning, 65; appointed British minister to the United States, v. 97; his instructions, 99–105; sails for America, 105; Gallatin’s expectations from, 111, 117; arrives at Washington, 115, 116; his impressions, 117–120; his negotiation, 120–132; rupture with, 132; his anger, 154, 155; his complaints, 156; his reception in Baltimore and New York, 157; discussed before Congress, 176, 178, 179, 182; his letters from New York and Boston, 212–218; returns to England, 219; his treatment by Wellesley, 218, 219, 269, 271, 272; his influence with the British government, vi. 13; his account of Pinkney’s “inamicable leave,” 20; his opinion of Augustus J. Foster, 22; his death, 22.
Jackson, Jacob, Second Lieutenant of Artillery, commanding at Chickasaw Bluff, iii. 325.
Jackson, James, senator from Georgia, and the Yazoo sale, i. 305; ii. 95, 155, 238; in the Ninth Congress, iii. 126; declares in favor of an embargo, 149, 176;
his death, 176.
Jackson, John George, member of Congress from Virginia, ii. 211; replies to Randolph’s attack on Madison, 215; attacks Quincy in Congress, iii. 196; opposes war, iv. 378.
Jackson, William, editor of the “Political Register,” ii. 265; discloses Yrujo’s attempt to use him, 266.
Jacmel, siege of, i. 385.
“Jacob Jones,” privateer, viii. 195.
Jamaica blockaded by American privateers, vii. 13; rendezvous for British expedition against New Orleans Nov. 20, 1814, 311, 316, 330.
“Java,” British frigate, her action with the “Constitution,” vi. 385, 386; effect of capture in England, vii. 15, 16.
Jay, Chief-Justice, i. 108; sent to England by Washington, ii. 323; vii. 43; negotiates treaty with Lord Grenville, 326.
Jay’s treaty (see Treaties).
Jefferson, Thomas, describes Virginia roads, i. 13; his agricultural experience, 32; his aversion to cities, 59, 138, 147; his aversion to banks, 65; ii. 131; his political ideals, i 72, 73, 146, 147, 179; Federalist opinion of, 80 etseq., 83, 112, 114; opposed to manufactures, 138; chief author of the Kentucky Resolutions, 140 etseq.; leader of the Virginia school, 143; characteristics of, 144 etseq.; his political doctrines, 146 etseq., 156; Thomas Moore’s verses on, 167; visionary, 170; his ideas of progress, 178, 179; personal characteristics, 185 etseq.; his dress, 187; ii. 366, 405;
social pre-eminence, i. 188; his inauguration, 191; his antipathy to Marshall, 192, 194; purity of his life, 196; his Inaugural Address, 199 etseq.; his conception of government, 210 etseq.; his foreign policy, 214 etseq.; his Cabinet, 218 etseq.; his plans for the navy, 222 etseq.; his treatment of patronage, 224, 294; his New Haven letter, 226; his first annual message, 248; his course with regard to the Judiciary, 255 etseq.; his abnegation of power, 262; his power, 266; his theory of internal politics, 272; contradictions in his character, 277; his hopefulness, 307 etseq.; as a man of science, 310; his dislike for New Englanders, 310 etseq.; his letter to Paine, 316; attacked by Callender, 322; sensitiveness of, 324; his relations with Callender, 325 etseq.; sends Lear to St. Domingo, 389; ignorant of Bonaparte’s schemes, 403 etseq.; his eyes opened, 409; his letter to Dupont de Nemours, 410; writes to Livingston defining his position with respect to France and Spain, 424; his annual message, 1802, 427; ignores the war party, 428; replies to their demand for papers touching the right of deposit at New Orleans, 430; quiets the West, 432; attempts the purchase of New Orleans, 432 etseq.;
his language to Thornton, 436; prefers Natchez to New Orleans as a seat of trade, 443; his apparent inconsistency, 443 etseq.; the essence of his statesmanship, 445; proposes alliance with England, ii. 1, 78; instructs Pinckney to offer a consideration to Spain for New Orleans and Florida, 22; writes a defence of his use of patronage for the Boston “Chronicle,” 82; his amendment to the Constitution regarding Louisiana, 83; his letter to Breckinridge on the subject, 84; to Paine, 86; draws up a new amendment, 86; his reply to W. C. Nicholas, 89; his message Oct. 7, 1803, 92; his bill for the administration of Louisiana, 119; his view of the Louisiana treaty and legislation, 130; requests Congress to enlarge the Mediterranean force, 140; interview with Burr, 175; declines to appoint Burr to an executive office, 176; his knowledge of Federalist schemes, 192; his confidence in his popularity, 202; receives the electoral votes of Massachusetts and New Hampshire, 204; his message November, 1804, 206; his disappointment at the acquittal of Justice Chase, 243; his authority in foreign affairs, 245; desires to obtain West Florida, 245; explains to Senator Breckinridge his course toward Spain, 248; his plan to obtain West Florida, 249; instructs Monroe with regard to the Spanish claims, 250; the harvest season of his life, 252; sends troops to Natchez, 254; makes no demand for West Florida when Louisiana is delivered, 256;
declares Mobile within the United States, 263; entertains Yrujo at Monticello, 266; his conviction of the power of American commercial interests, 330; anxious for friendship with England, 342; his intimacy with Thornton, 347; his opinion of Bonaparte, 347, 353, 381; decides to maintain the neutral rights of the United States more strictly, 356; his social habits, 363; establishes a new social code, 365; receives Merry, 366; invites him to dinner with Pichon, 369; sends list of impressments to the Senate, 384; improves his style of dress, 405; his enemies, 409; his second inauguration, iii. 1; his second Inaugural Address, 1–9; his Cabinet, 10; result of his Spanish diplomacy, 38, 39; his letter to Madison respecting Monroe’s mission, 54; his letter to James Bowdoin respecting the Spanish relations, 57; writes to Madison respecting procedure with Spain, 61; suggests a treaty with England, 63; favors Armstrong’s advice to occupy Texas, 69; writes to Madison of plan for peaceable settlement by intervention of France, 75; his memorandum of a Cabinet meeting on Spanish relations, 77; the turning-point of his second administration, 80; his conversation with Merry after the British seizures, 101; his memorandum of the new Spanish policy, 106; his aversion to war with England, 108; his annual message, 1805, 111, etseq.; announces his intention to retire at the close of his term, 119;
his Message applauded by the Federalist press, 129; his secret Spanish message, 130; preserves secrecy in Congress, 147; coerced into sending special mission to England, 150, 152, 433; conciliates opposition in Congress, 165; warns Monroe against Randolph, 165; makes advances to Macon, 167; Randolph’s attack on, 172, etseq.; closes American ports to three British cruisers, 200; his character and position described by Turreau, 205; asks Bidwell to take the leadership in the House, 207; his refusal to obey a subpœna, 208, 450; receives Burr at the White House, 233; his seeming indifference to Burr’s movements, 266; his memoranda of the situation, 278; sends Graham to inquire into Burr’s movements, 281; orders Wilkinson to use active measures, 284; issues a proclamation against Burr, 285; his letter to Secretary Smith regarding naval and military defences, 332; obliged to proceed against Burr, 336; and to defend Wilkinson, 341; his annual message, December, 1806, 345 etseq.; advocates internal improvements, 346; would abolish the slave-trade, 347; signs the Act prohibiting the Slave Trade, 365; defied by Spain, 388; his instructions to Monroe and Pinkney regarding the treaty, 401 etseq.; determined on commercial restrictions, 423; refuses to submit Monroe’s treaty to the Senate, 430 etseq.; offers Monroe the government of Orleans Territory, 435; his letter to Bowdoin about Spanish perfidy and injustice, 436; designs to impeach Marshall, 447; his irritation with Marshall and Burr’s counsel, 450, 453;
supports Wilkinson, 456; his vexation at Burr’s acquittal, 470; his proclamation on the Chesapeake affair, iv. 30; preparations for war, 32; his instructions to Monroe, 39; the result of his measures of peaceful coercion, 97; his genius for peace, 130; his personal friendship for Monroe, 130; his confidence in his own theory, 138; domestic opposition to, insignificant, 145 etseq.; his strength in Congress, 147; the secret of his success, 148; his annual message, Oct. 27, 1807, 153; his influence, 155; his second message concerning the Burr trial, 156; his policy as to gunboats, 158; yields to Canning, 163, 164; writes an embargo message, 168; signs the Embargo Act, Dec. 22, 1807, 178; his entreaties to Rose through Robert Smith, 188–191; asks Congress for an addition of six thousand men to the regular army, 212; charged with a subserviency to Napoleon, 228; issues a proclamation against insurrection on the Canada frontier, 249; writes a circular letter to State governors respecting the surplus of flour in their States, 252; writes to Governor Sullivan of Massachusetts to stop importing provisions, 253; writes to General Dearborn, 256; his war with the Massachusetts Federalists, 258; his popularity shattered, 269; hatred of, in England, 331; orders Pinkney to offer a withdrawal of the embargo if England would withdraw the Orders in Council, 333 et seq.;
