HUCA80 Jacobs

hebrew union college annual volume lxxx

“But It Seems to Me ; . . . but I Say” Later Additions to Rashbam’s Torah Commentary Jonathan Jacobs Bar-Ilan University

Terms of Use This work is protected by copyright. No material herein may be copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, posted, transmitted, or distributed in any way without written permission of the copyright owner, except that you may download one copy of the work on any single computer and produce one printed copy for your personal, non-commercial use only, provided you keep intact all copyright and proprietary notices. Furthermore, the author of this article, who has received this PDF as an offprint, may distribute up to twenty copies of this PDF, with the understanding that the recipients will not further distribute it. Modification of the work or use of the work for any other purpose is a violation of the Hebrew Union College Annual’s copyright. Permission for all other uses of materials contained herein, including reproducing and distributing multiple copies, or linking to any electronic form of this article, must be obtained from the Annual in advance.

Hebrew Union College Annual

3101 Clifton Avenue, Cincinnati, Ohio 45220

20120412.1-huca80

Edward A. Goldman, Editor Richard S. Sarason, Associate Editor Editorial Board David Ellenson, Reuven Firestone, Nili Fox, Alyssa Gray, Samuel Greengus, Adam Kamesar, Jason Kalman, Barry Kogan, Michael Meyer, Stanley Nash, David Sperling, Dvora Weisberg

20120412.1-huca80

HEBREW UNION COLLEGE ANNUAL Volume lxxx

Cincinnati 9

20120412.1-huca80

© 2011 by Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion Library of Congress Catalogue Card Number 25-12620 issn 360-9049 Design and composition by Kelby Bowers Printed in the United States of America

20120412.1-huca80

Subvention for the publication of this volume  of the Hebrew Union College Annual was received from Shelly Shor Gerson and The Henry Englander-Eli Mayer Publication Fund established in their honor by Mrs. Esther Straus Englander and Mrs. Jessie Straus Mayer

20120412.1-huca80



Submissions

We welcome for consideration scholarly essays in Jewish and Cognate Studies, Ancient and Modern : Bible, Rabbinics, Language and Literature, History, Philosophy, Religion. Please address your submission inquiries to The Editor at [email protected]. Authors submitting manuscripts for publication are asked to do the following :

1 For manuscript formatting, follow The University of Chicago Manual of Style in general and The SBL Handbook of Style specifically. 2 All manuscripts, including notes, should be continuously paginated, double-spaced and employ generous margins all around. 3 Every manuscript must include an English abstract of 200 words maximum. 4 Submissions should be sent in Portable Document Format (PDF) as email attachments to [email protected].



Previous Volumes

The Annual office can supply vols. xlv–lxxviii excluding vol. lv (out of stock): vols. xlv–lii at $15.00, vols. liii–lviii at $20.00, vols. lix–lxxii at $30.00, and vols. lxxiii–lxXix at $40.00. Printed copies of individual articles are available for a fee of $5.00. For more information email the Annual office at : [email protected]. The American Jewish Periodicals Center at HUC-JIR, 3101 Clifton Avenue, Cincinnati, Ohio 45220 can supply microfilm copies of vols. xxxviii–xliv.



Supplements

Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi. The Lisbon Massacre of 1506 and the Royal Image in the Shebet Yehudah. 1976. Mark E. Cohen. Sumerian Hymnology : The Eršemma. 1981. William C. Gwaltney, Jr. The Pennsylvania Old Assyrian Texts. 1982. Kenneth R. Stow. “The 1007 Anonymous” and Papal Sovereignty : Jewish Perceptions of the Papacy and Papal Policy in the High Middle Ages. 1985. Martin A. Cohen. The Canonization of a Myth : Portugal’s “Jewish Problem” and the Assembly of Tomar 1629. 2002. Stephen M. Passamaneck. Modalities in Medieval Jewish Law for Public Order and Safety. 2009.



Hebrew Union College Annual



3101 Clifton Avenue, Cincinnati, Ohio 45220

20120412.1-huca80

Contents 1 The Ruse of Zelophehad’s Daughters David H. Aaron, Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion 39 Nine at Once A Study in the Mutability of Textual Traditions Binyamin Katzoff, Bar-Ilan University 63 “You Have Skirted This Hill Long Enough” The Tension between Rhetoric and History in a Byzantine Piyyut Laura S. Lieber, Duke University 115 “Who Can Recount the Mighty Acts of the Lord?” Cosmology and Authority in Pirqei deRabbi Eliezer 1–3 Annette Yoshiko Reed, University of Pennsylvania 143 “But It Seems to Me ; . . . but I Say” Later Additions to Rashbam’s Torah Commentary Jonathan Jacobs, Bar-Ilan University 173 The “Ten Questions” of Eliezer Eilburg Joseph M. Davis, Gratz College, Philadelphia

a rtsal Mogrth ? imogrth wrdmh oa iwrdmh Mogrth

Arnon Atzmon, Bar-Ilan University

ak hrot hnwm Nibl M”bmrl hnwmh worip Nib igwomh locipho Noimh tjiw ,itklhh rmoxh Pqih

Yuval Sinai, Netanya Academic College

jl Minorxah torodb domlth tonwrp torps lw Miinongso Miirojr Miniipam qi’ciibolos tloksam hmgdh

Luba R. Charlap, Lifshitz Academic College of Education, Jerusalem

20120412.1-huca80

“But It Seems to Me ; . . . but I Say” Later Additions to Rashbam’s Torah Commentary Jonathan Jacobs Bar-Ilan University Rashbam’s commentary on the Torah has not enjoyed good fortune. Only one manuscript survived, and even this single manuscript is no longer in existence. Furthermore, over the centuries this text — like other manuscripts — was subject to addenda, corrections, mistakes and corruptions introduced by students, scribes and printers. When several manuscripts are available, a comparison between them is helpful for locating later addenda. However, since in our case no such possibility exists, it is necessary to apply different criteria to identify addenda to Rashbam’s Commentary. The article starts out by proposing seven criteria for identifying addenda. Four of them are technical, that is, unrelated to the content of the commentary : 1. explicit testimony by the author or interpolator ; 2. fixed formulae for addenda ; 3. the handwriting in the manuscript ; 4. explanations whose language is garbled. Two criteria relate to the commentator’s exegetical style : 5. double peshat explanations ; 6. invocation of midrashim. The last criterion concerns the actual content of the commentary : 7. internal contradictions. The article goes on to present twenty-seven addenda, which are not attributed to Rashbam himself. The significance of identifying later addenda lies in the clarification of the author’s original commentary, and the opportunity to resolve seeming contradictions between explanations posed by the author himself and those put forward by others.

As is known, time has not been kind to Rashbam’s Torah commentary.1 It survived in only a single non-autograph manuscript (MS Breslau), and even this no longer exists today.2 As is the way with manuscripts, it, too, contained numerous interpolations, corrections, mistakes, and corruptions, contributed



1 All quotations from Rashbam’s commentary derive from Rosin’s edition (Rashbam, Perush haTorah, ed. David Rosin [Breslau : S. Schottlaender, 1882]), unless otherwise stated. The English rendering of the commentary is based on Lockshin’s edition (Martin I. Lockshin, Rabbi Samuel ben Meir’s Commentary on Genesis : An Annotated Translation, Jewish Studies 5 [Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellen Press, 1989]; and his, Rashbam’s Commentary on Exodus : An Annotated Translation, BJS 310 [Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1997] ; . . . on Leviticus and Numbers, BJS 330 [Providence, R.I.: Brown Univ., 2001], and . . . on Deuteronomy, BJS 340 [2004]), with modifications as deemed appropriate for the present paper. 2 See Elazar Touitou, Exegesis in Perpetual Motion, Studies in the Pentateuchal Commentary of Rabbi Samuel ben Meir (Ramat Gan : Bar-Ilan Univ., 2003) (Heb.). Touitou devoted an entire chapter ( pp. 79–97) to the “text and form of the commentary,” but ignored the question of additions to the commentary.

143

20120412.1-huca80

144

Jonathan Jacobs

2

by students, copyists, and printers. Rosin dealt with these at length in his comprehensive study of the commentary.3 When a text is represented by several extant manuscripts we can compare them in order to identify later additions. Because this is impossible in the present case, we must rely on other criteria to identify later additions to Rashbam’s Torah commentary. We should distinguish between two types of additions : 1. changes made by the author himself — adding, deleting, or modifying the text when he was proofing his work ; 2. additions made by students or copyists. Identifying additions of the first sort can help us learn more about the commentator’s exegetical method and thought ; identifying those in the second category is important for restoring the original commentary and eliminating spurious contradictions between comments that originate with the author himself and those inserted by others. In the present article I propose seven criteria for identifying additions in works for which there is no manuscript evidence and present twenty-seven additions to Rashbam’s Torah commentary that seem to be later interpolations.4 SEVEN Criteria for Identifying Additions My seven criteria for identifying additions are as follows : 1. An explicit statement by the author or the interpolator. In the optimum situation, a manuscript contains explicit evidence that a passage has been added by



3 David Rosin, R. Samuel b. Meir als Schrifterklärer (Breslau : Koebner, 1880). On pp. 31–37 he notes a variety of mistakes in MS Breslau ; on pp. 37–46 he records the deficiencies of the various print editions. As for the state of the manuscripts of medieval biblical commentaries, “all medieval biblical commentaries underwent a long process of transmission and in no case are we even close to their autographs” (The Commentary of Rashbam on Qoheleth, ed. and trans. Sara Japhet and Robert Salters [Jerusalem : Magnes, 1985] 33); “these works traversed a long path of transmission, which caused many changes in their textual quality. These changes include both omissions and expansions, both scribal corruptions and intentional alterations” (Sara Japhet, The Commentary of Rashbam on the Book of Job [Jerusalem : Magnes, 2000] 79 [Heb.] ; and see also n. 95 there). See also Jonathan Jacobs, “The Text of Rashbam’s Commentary on the Torah according to Breslau MS and other Sources” (in press). On textual variants, omissions, and expansions by the author and other hands in Rashi’s commentaries, see, for example, Avraham Grossman, The Early Sages of France : Their Lives, Leadership and Works (Jerusalem : Magnes, 1995) 182–93 (Heb.), and the bibliography there, 184 n. 211. 4 Elsewhere I have presented seventeen additions belonging to the first category, namely, by the author himself. See Jonathan Jacobs, “Later Addenda to Rashbam’s Commentary on the Torah,” TarbiΩ 76, 3–4 (2007) 445–69 (Heb.). There I wrote about three categories of additions : a new peshat explanation to replace the author’s previous gloss ; the addition of a precise source in the talmudic literature to buttress Rashbam’s peshat explanation ; and corroboration of his linguistic emendations on the basis of more accurate texts of the Torah. What lies behind the additions made by Rashbam himself, I believe, is his exegetical method, which championed a constant search for new peshat readings, which are “renewed every day” ( his commentary on Gen 37 : 2), as well as the opposition he encountered after the first publication of his work. On this op-

20120412.1-huca80

3

“But It Seems to Me ; . . . but I Say ”

145

the author or by a later hand. In Rashbam’s commentary there are six explicit instances of later additions for which Rashbam was not responsible. 2. A formula. Sometimes a specific phrase or words indicate an addition.5 The following formulas may introduce interpolations in Rashbam’s commentaries : “ later I found,” “I have also found,” “I have seen,” “I saw,” “to my eyes it appears,” “ but it seems to me,” “to me it seems,” “ but I say,” “one can also say,” “one can also interpret,” and “you might wish to say.” In a few of these cases it is possible, based on other considerations, to attribute an interpolation with certainty either to Rashbam himself or to a later hand. In others it is impossible to reach an unequivocal decision about the author of the addition. 3. Format of the manuscript or the handwriting. When we have access to the manuscript we may be able to identify additions by the format or handwriting, such as text written in the margin, in smaller letters, in a different ink, or in a different script than the original text. In our case we cannot investigate the ink or script. In some instances, however, Rosin noted that a passage was in the margin or written in smaller letters.6 This criterion is generally useful for identifying interpolations by a later hand. 4. Ungrammatical or awkward passages. Rashbam’s commentary on the Torah is short and concise, written in clear and precise language. Where this is not the case we have good reason to suspect some kind of textual corruption. If other criteria are available we may conjecture that we actually have to deal with a marginal note that was erroneously incorporated into the body of the commentary. This criterion, too, is generally useful for identifying interpolations by a later hand. 5. Multiple peshat interpretations. Rashbam, like his grandfather Rashi and many other commentators, accepts the principle of multivocality, that is, the possibility of several parallel interpretations of the same verse.7 The scholarly







position, see Jonathan Jacobs, “Rashbam’s Major Principles of Interpretation as Deduced from a Manuscript Fragment Discovered in 1984,” in REJ 171 (2011). 5 On key words that flag corrections inserted by the author himself, see Yaakov Shmuel Spiegel, Chapters in the History of the Jewish Book : Writing and Transmission (Jerusalem : Bar-Ilan Univ., 2005) 140–44 (Heb.). The formulas he lists include “after that I found,” “after I had written,” “ later I found.” On key words that indicate corrections made by copyists, see Yaakov Shmuel Spiegel, Chapters in the History of the Jewish Book : Scholars and their Annotation (Jerusalem : Bar-Ilan Univ., 1996) 143–58 (Heb.). Japhet believes that the formulas wrpl wio “one can interpret,” wio rmol “one can say,” and inieb harno “it seems to me” in Rashbam on Job are signs of an interpolation by a copyist ; see Japhet, Job, 305. 6 See Rosin, Schrifterklärer, 56–57. The manuscript of Rashbam’s commentary on Job, too, contains additions of this sort. Japhet (Job, 296–98) discussed eighteen notes in the manuscript of the Job commentary. They can be identified formally, because they were written by the copyist in the margin or marked in some other fashion. See also Spiegel, Scholars, 155–58. 7 On the acceptance of multivocality by Rashi and Rashbam, see Touitou, Exegesis, 54–55.

20120412.1-huca80

146

4

Jonathan Jacobs

consensus is that Rashbam concurs only when one interpretation is peshat and the other is derash, but not when both are peshat.8 In the words of Sarah Japhet : . . . the practice which is so common in Jewish exegetical tradition, including medieval commentators, of suggesting several possibilities for interpreting a given text, is completely absent from Rashbam’s work. . . . There can never be two correct interpretations of one text.9 Indeed, sometimes Rashbam rejects other peshat interpretations in general terms ; for example : “He who wishes to understand the true plain meaning of these verses should seek wisdom in this, my commentary, for those who preceded me did not understand them at all” (Exodus 3 : 11). In dozens of cases Rashbam refers to a peshat interpretation only to reject it, after which he offers his own peshat, which he favors for exegetical reasons.10 If we accept Japhet’s generalization, we have an invaluable tool for identifying additions to the commentary : wherever we encounter two peshat interpretations, one of them either represents a change of opinion by Rashbam himself or was interpolated by a later hand. A close scrutiny of Rashbam’s commentary on the Torah, however, seems to undercut this approach. First of all, there are places where Rashbam mentions a peshat interpretation by one of his predecessors, alongside his own interpretation, but does not dispute the alternative interpretation.11 Of course one could say that in all such cases Rashbam cites the alternative interpretation in order to hint that he







8 See, for example, Moshe Berger, “The Torah Commentary of Rabbi Samuel Ben Meir” (Ph.D. diss.; Cambridge, Mass. : Harvard Univ., 1982) 345–46. Note that modern commentators apply the principle of multivocality not only to peshat vs. derash, but also to parallel peshat explanations ; much has been written on the topic. See Dana Nolan Fewell, ed., Reading Between Texts : Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible (Louisville : Westminster, 1992). 9 Japhet and Salters, Qoheleth, 61–62. In Rashbam’s commentary on Qoheleth I found two double peshat interpretations. Japhet (Japhet and Salters, Qoheleth, 111 n. 24) defined the first of them (2 : 18) as a gloss, purely because it is an alternative explanation ! She did not do so with regard to the second instance (7 : 1). Note two additional instances in the commentary on Qoheleth in which Rashbam advances an alternative peshat only to reject it : 3 : 18 ; 4 : 13 ; and see the next note. Japhet wrote something similar in her introduction to the Job commentary, too :“Rashbam’s approach in all his exegetical works is to offer a single explanation for each point, which is the plain meaning of Scripture” (Japhet, Job, 306). Japhet identified six loci in the commentary on Job where one explanation is followed by another that contradicts it ; she believes that all of these were added by later hands (Japhet, Job, 305–6). 10 Here is a list of the instances in which Rashbam advances a peshat interpretation only to dispute and reject it : Gen 1 : 1 ; 37 : 2, 23 ; 38 : 14 ; 44 : 5 ; 48 : 7 ; 49 : 6, 8, 9, 16 ; Exod 2 : 2, 6 ; 4 : 25 ; 5 : 11, 15 ; 6 : 3 ; 12 : 7 ; 13 : 15 ; 17 : 15 ; 19 : 11, 23 ; 33 : 14 ; 34 : 29 ; Lev 26 : 21 ; Num 4 : 10 ; 6 : 3 ; 12 : 1 ; 22 : 33 ; 30 : 2 ; Deut 7 : 23 ; 15 : 18 ; 32 : 10. In many of these cases the disagreement is with his grandfather Rashi. 11 In three cases the alternative interpretation is that of Menah.em ben Saruq : Gen 15 : 2 ; Exod 27 : 9 ; Num 33 : 55.

20120412.1-huca80

5

“But It Seems to Me ; . . . but I Say ”

147

disagrees with it, even if he does not explicitly reject it, as he does in most cases.12 In other instances Rashbam presents two alternative interpretations without mentioning an earlier source. Here too we can say that he is offering one of them in order to reject it and accept the other. Consider the following example, which at first glance seems to be a double peshat :

romah laoer Nb bboxo .orti Mhiba Mw ,Nk Ma .Nhiba iba laoer—laoer la .orti aoh bbox aoh—(29 i ’mb) oninpl .hih orti Nb Nk Ma ,orti aoh laoer Mao ,orti aoh bboxw xikom ,(11 d ’ow) hwm Ntox bbox inbm Miaibnb botkw hmo .orti rikzm hwm Ntox rikzmw Moqm lkbw TO REUEL, [THEIR FATHER : That is,] their father’s father. Accordingly their father’s name was Jethro ; and as for “Hobab son of Reuel” mentioned below (Numbers 10 : 29), Hobab and Jethro are one and the same person. [However,] if [one were to read the phrase in our verse “TO REUEL, THEIR FATHER” literally and then posit that] Reuel and Jethro are one and the same person, then [one would also have to posit that] Hobab is Jethro’s son. A passage in the prophets (Judges 4 : 11) “descendants of Hobab, Moses’ Ntox” proves that Hobab [is Moses’ father-in-law, not his brother-in-law, and that he] and Jethro are one and the same person. The phrase hwm Ntox, [which is applied to Hobab in the Judges passage] is [otherwise] invariably applied to Jethro. The question is whether Reuel was the sisters’ father or grandfather. The consequences involve whether Jethro is the same as Reuel or is Reuel’s son, and whether Hobab is Jethro or Jethro’s son. The passage italicized here reads like an alternative peshat, which holds that Reuel is the sisters’ father and that Hobab is his son (and their brother). Although this could be a later interpolation, of course, I believe that Rashbam is advancing the alternative in order to reject it. For he goes on to prove from the Prophets that Hobab is Jethro and not Jethro’s son. This reading is supported by his commentary on Num 10 : 29, where he states, quite simply, “To Hobab : That is, to Jethro. It is written (Judg 4 : 11), ‘From the descendants of Hobab, Moses’ father-in-law.” 13

12 See above, n. 10. 13 In another instance (Exod 18 : 13), Rashbam advances two possibilities as to when Jethro came to the Israelite camp. Although at first glance it may seem that he is offering a double peshat, it is more likely that here too the first explanation is presented only to be rejected in favor of the second one, as can be proven from what he writes, “Yet it makes sense to say that Jethro did come after the giving of the Torah.” There is another place where Rashbam seems to offer two peshat interpretations, on Gen 48 : 2. In my opinion, however, this is not a case of two peshat interpretations. Rather, it exemplifies Rashbam’s principle of anticipation, which sometimes leads him to propose that a verse anticipates later verses, as here. On the principle of anticipation in general

20120412.1-huca80

148

Jonathan Jacobs

6

I have found six other instances in which Rashbam offers more than one peshat interpretation and one cannot assume that later additions are involved. These cases have no obvious common denominator, however, except, perhaps, that in all of them Rashbam proposes several possible explanations for a character’s behavior or situation.14 Because psychology is involved, we are not dealing with mutually exclusive peshat interpretations. Apparently Rashbam believed that conduct may stem from complex multiple factors that are not necessarily contradictory, even if the biblical verse itself has only one meaning. The bottom line is that Rashbam usually limits himself to a single peshat interpretation of a verse. In some places he offers an alternative interpretation in order to reject it. In isolated instances he does propose more than one peshat interpretation, but only when attempting to explain characters’ behavior. Hence I would suggest a slight modification of Japhet’s rule : A text never has two different peshat interpretations in Rashbam’s commentaries, except when he is explaining behavior. Every other instance of a double explanation is evidence of a later addition. 6. Citation of midrashim. Rashbam does not often refer to midrashim.15 As Japhet notes, “It is well known that Rashbam is extremely niggardly in his citation of





and of one verse that anticipates two later verses, see Jonathan Jacobs, “The Anticipation Principle in Rashbam’s Torah Commentary,” in Shmuel Vargon, Amos Frisch, Moshe Rachimi, eds., Studies in Bible and Exegesis, Vol. 8, Presented to Elazar Touitou (Ramat-Gan : Bar-Ilan, 2008) 451– 79 (Heb.) and the additional references in n. 1 there. 14 Three explanations of why Lot was forbidden to look behind him (Gen 19 : 17); two explanations of why Rebecca loved Jacob (Gen 25 : 28); two explanations of the prohibition on eating the sciatic nerve (Gen 32 : 33); three explanations of why the brothers did not recognize Joseph (Gen 42 : 8); two explanations of why he accused them of being spies (Gen 42 : 9); and two explanations of why Moses cautioned the Israelites not to injure their kindred nations precisely when he does (Deut 2 : 5). As noted above, what is common to these instances is that they deal with a character’s behavior or situation. It may be that, in light of this, there is no need for such instances to be included in the list of multiple peshat interpretations. 15 The halakhic midrashim mentioned explicitly are : Mekhilta (Exod 6 : 14 ; Num 11 : 35 [twice]); Sifra (Exod 21 : 18 ; 27 : 20); Sifre (Exod 27 : 20 ; Num 11 : 35 [twice]; 15 : 39). The aggadic midrashim mentioned explicitly are : Genesis Rabbah (Gen 19 : 24 ; 30 : 11); Tanh.uma (Gen 19 : 24); Shoh.er Tov (Gen 36 : 12); Midrash Shemuel (Gen 22 : 1); Pirqei deRabbi Eliezer (Exod 32 : 19). Rashbam also mentions two other works that he considers to be aggadic midrashim : The 32 Exegetical Principles of R. Eliezer b. R. Josef haGelili (Gen 1 : 27 ; 37 : 2); and Leqah. Tov, which is a midrashic-exegetical anthology (Gen 41 : 10). Japhet (Sara Japhet, “Rashbam’s Commentary on Genesis 22 : ‘Peshat’ or ‘Derash’?,” Sara Japhet, ed., The Bible in the Light of its Interpreters : Sarah Kamin Memorial Volume [Jerusalem : Magnes, 1994] 360 n. 43 [Heb.]) listed five aggadic midrashim, but left out the references to Leqah. Tov and The 32 Principles. According to her, Rashbam cites Pirqei deRabbi Eliezer twice ; but I could find only one instance (and so too in Rosin’s list [see below]). For a detailed list of all of the references, explicit and otherwise, see Rosin, Schrifterklärer, 61–64. The 32 Exegetical Principles seems to date from the Geonic period. See : Moshe Zuker, “Towards a Solution of the Problem of the 32 Principles and the Mishnah of R. Eliezer,” PAAJR 23 (1954) 1–39 ; Yona Frenkel,

20120412.1-huca80

7

“But It Seems to Me ; . . . but I Say ”

149

midrashim. Even less is he in the habit of naming his sources explicitly.” 16 If so, any passage in which a source is cited by name is suspect as a later addition. This criterion is less weighty than the previous one, because one cannot state categorically that every midrash cited by Rashbam to support his interpretation is a later addition. Hence I will employ it with great caution and only when it supplements another criterion. In any case, we must distinguish between midrashic references that are integrated into the commentary and references tacked on at the end of a comment to provide supporting evidence. The former category can never be seen as a later addition. For example, Rashbam writes on Exod 6 : 14 :

bqei Mtoa hnigw Mijbw hwlw olia atlikmb wrpm—Mtoba tib iwar hla hwm de :jwph iplo .Mh Mibowxw eidohl ,botkh hte Msxii ,otaooc teb ,hrotb oninpl Mirkznh sxnpo laizoe inbo xrq deo ,Nak sxiil Krcoh Nrhao oninpl Mirkznh Mh im tedl THE FOLLOWING ARE THE HEADS OF THEIR RESPECTIVE CLANS : The Mekhilta explains that the text provides the genealogies of those three tribes that Jacob had censured just before he died in order to teach us that those tribes are still important. According to the plain meaning of Scripture, the text had to get as far as Moses and Aaron [. . .] Because Rashbam first refers to the Mekhilta and then proposes the peshat as an alternative, this must be an original passage rather than an interpolation by another hand. On the other hand, on Exod 32 : 19 Rashbam writes :

onmm qoxr Mkilwho xk ob hih alo ,oxk wwt lgeh ta harwk—odim Klwio .tawl xk Mhb Niawk ioawm ikilwm lk Krdb ,Mlpnb oilgr ta qizi alw ,tcq Kk ojowp rqieo ,rzeila ibr lw Miqrpb itiar Nko



Methods of Aggadah and Midrash (Givatayim : Massada, 1991) 501. Leqah. Tov was compiled by Tobias b. Eliezer of Kastoria (Greece), who lived in the late eleventh and early twelfth century. See Israel Moshe Ta-Shma, Studies in Medieval Rabbinic Literature, 3. Italy and Byzantium (Jerusalem : Bialik Institute, 2005) 259–94 (Heb.). On the relationship between Tobias and Rashbam see Jonathan Jacobs, “To What Degree was Rashbam Familiar with Midrash Leqah. Tov ? ” Avraham Reiner, ed., Ta-Shma : Studies in Memory of Israel M. Ta-Shma (Alon Shevut  : Tevunot, 2011). 16 Japhet, “Genesis 22,” 360. As she writes elsewhere, “The very inclusion of a midrash to support the explanation . . . deviates from Rashbam’s usual method” (Sara Japhet, “Hiskuni’s Commentary on the Pentateuch : Its Genre and Purpose,” in Moshe Bar-Asher, ed., Rabbi Mordechai Breuer Festschrift, Collected Papers in Jewish Studies [Jerusalem : Akademon, 1992] 96–97 [Heb.]). One can infer from Rosin (Schrifterklärer, 56) that he too believes that aggadic passages quoted in Rashbam’s commentary are suspected of being later interpolations. Japhet found only three explicit references to a midrash in Rashbam’s commentary on Ecclesiastes (Japhet and Salters, Qoheleth, 62 and n. 175). Japhet has written at length on Rashbam’s attitude toward midrashim in his commentary on Job (Japhet, Job, 56–78).

20120412.1-huca80

150

8

Jonathan Jacobs

HE THREW THE TABLETS DOWN : When Moses saw the calf, his strength waned and he no longer had enough strength. So he threw the tablets down, a small distance away from him, so that when they fell down, they would not land on his feet and injure him, in the same manner that any person would throw down an item that is too heavy. I found this interpretation in Pirqei deRabbi Eliezer, and it is the true plain meaning of Scripture. Here the reference to the midrash appears at the end of the comment ; drawing on other criteria, as well, we may assume that we are dealing with a later addition, which may have been added by Rashbam himself.17 Another difference exists between these two passages. In the first case Rashbam quotes the Mekhilta as a homiletic alternative to his peshat interpretation. In the second case — and in all of the passages where Rashbam added later a midrashic reference to a comment — the purpose is to employ the midrash to corroborate his peshat interpretation. This is clear from the closing formula : “I found this interpretation in Pirqei deRabbi Eliezer, and it is the true plain meaning of Scripture.” 7. Internal contradictions. One way to identify later additions is to note internal contradictions that are evidence of the author’s change of opinion or of an interpolation by a copyist.18 There are contradictions both within Rashbam’s commentary on the Torah and between this work and other commentaries attributed to him.19 But there are very few internal contradictions in the commentary on the Torah ; hence each of them may be evidence of an addition. Four of our criteria are technical ; that is, they do not involve the content of the commentary : 1. explicit testimony by the author or interpolator ; 2. formulas denoting an addition ; 3. a different format or script in the manuscript ; 4. ungrammatical or awkward passages. Two criteria have to do with the commentator’s



17 This instance differs from those that will be presented below, since the present article focuses only on those addenda that were not inserted by Rashbam himself. For addenda that Rashbam himself chose to include, see Jacobs, “Later Addenda,” and esp. example 9. 18 Spiegel, Scholars, 144–50, offers examples, from a number of works, of internal contradictions that are evidence of corrections made by the author himself. 19 Because there is an as-yet-unresolved controversy as to the identity of the author of the commentaries on Job, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs, one cannot really use contradictions between them and the commentary on the Torah to identify additions. For example, Japhet (Job, 67 n. 61) proposed, based on a contradiction between the commentary on Job 19 : 3 and Rashbam on Lev 26 : 26, and with no additional grounds, that part of the commentary on Leviticus is a later addition. I believe, however, that Lockshin was right to reject this conjecture ; see Martin Lockshin, “‘Rashbam’ on Job : A Reconsideration,” JSQ 8 (2001) 90–92 ; see also his remarks there on p. 97 n. 56.

20120412.1-huca80

9

“But It Seems to Me ; . . . but I Say ”

151

method : 5. double peshat explanations and 6. references to and quotations from midrashim. Finally, one criterion deals with the content itself : 7. internal contradictions. The first criterion is the most reliable, clearly indicating whether or not the original author is responsible for the addition. The other criteria may indicate an addition but cannot always help us determine who is responsible for it. Most of these criteria can be applied to any work. Clearly the fifth and sixth criteria, which relate to Rashbam’s exegetical method, are useful for finding additions in his commentary but not in works by authors who do not accept these principles. Other witness texts. As mentioned, we do not have a manuscript of Rashbam’s commentary on the Torah. However, several witness texts exist that may be of help in identifying additions. I checked the first printed edition of the commentary (Berlin 1705), which differs in some particulars from Rosin’s edition, and noted any variant.20 I also systematically examined the Tosafists’ references to Rashbam’s commentary and recorded where they are relevant to the question of additions.21

The Additions to the Commentary Here I will present twenty-seven additions to Rashbam’s commentary on the Torah. With regard to the first thirteen there is no doubt that they were added by a later hand. As for the others, I see no proof that they were written by Rashbam and consequently assign them, too, to later writers. But the attribution is not certain and new evidence might favor assigning them to Rashbam himself.



20 Hereafter “Berlin edition.” In most cases it is identical to Rosin’s text. All of the additions by the “young man” (riech) who was a disciple of Rabbi Eliezer of Beaugency (See below, “Explicit statement”) have been incorporated into the body of the commentary. The Berlin edition does not have a uniform policy with regard to marginalia that can be identified by the script or format ; see below, n. 29. In two cases the Berlin edition differs from Rosin’s text in a way that reveals a later addition ; see below, n. 46 (on Deut 28 : 46) and n. 54 (on Deut 5 : 12). On the importance of the Berlin edition as a textual witness for Rashbam’s commentary, see Itamar Kislev, “‘Whoever Has Needed the Words of Our Creator’ : Rashbam’s Methodological Preface to Leviticus and the Relationship between Rashi’s and Rashbam’s Commentaries,” TarbiΩ 73 (2004) 225–37 (Heb.). 21 I made use of the following editions : Yehoshafat Nevo, ed., The Commentary of R. Joseph BekhorShor on the Torah (Jerusalem : Mossad HaRav Kook, 1994); Chaim Dov Chavel, ed., Hizkuni, Commentaries on the Torah by R. Hezekiah b. Manoah (Jerusalem : Mossad HaRav Kook, 1981); David Sassoon, ed., Sefer Moshav Zeqenim on the Torah (London : Hanig, 1959); Issak Lange, ed., Torah Commentaries of R. Óayyim Paltiel (Jerusalem : Ben-Arza, 1981); Isaac b. Judah Halevy, xnep rps azr (Eretz Israel : n.p., n.d.); R. Jacob de Illescas, Meon irma rps, ed. Mordechai Harris (Jerusalem : Hominer, 1970); R. Jacob of Vienna, Miworipo Mijwp rps (Mainz : n.p., 1888); anonymous, rdh rps hroth le Minqz (Jerusalem : n.p., n.d.). I also referred to Jacob Gellis, ed., Tosafot Hashalem :

20120412.1-huca80

152

Jonathan Jacobs

10

Explicit statement by the interpolator In six cases the interpolator takes credit for his work. The first five were added by “the young man,” who was a disciple of Rabbi Eliezer of Beaugency. They were identified as later additions by the author of the Keren Shemuel supercommentary and by Rosin, even though the copyist had incorporated them into the body of the text.22 The sixth was added by “the interpreter” and identified as such by Lockshin.23 Note that in the Berlin edition all of the interpolations by “the young man” are incorporated into the body of the text. 1. Genesis 45 : 28. End of the comment on Gen 45 : 28 : “And I, the young man, have heard”; here the copyist offers an alternative peshat to Rashbam’s commentary. 2. Genesis 47 : 6. End of the comment on Gen 47 : 6 : “And I, the young man, have found”; this too is a proposed alternate peshat to that offered by Rashbam, based on Onqelos.24 3. Deuteronomy 1 : 2. At the start of the comment on Deut 1 : 2 there is a long addition, which concludes, “All of the above is an explanation [added] by me, the







A Comprehensive Collection of Commentaries Written by the Great Medieval Rabbis, the Tosafists (10 vols ; Jerusalem : Ariel, 1982–95) (Heb.). 22 Rabbi Shlomo Zalman, the author of the supercommentary Sefer Keren Shemuel on Rashbam (Posen : n.p., 1727), noted only some of the additions by “the young man.” On Gen 47 : 6 he wrote, “Some student wrote this, and this phrase can be found several times in the rabbi’s text” (Vayiggaš §9); on Deut 1 : 2 he wrote, “This means that one of the rabbi’s students wrote this,” although later he vacillates about this (Devarim §2). On Deut 2 : 14 he quoted the remark by “the young man” and added that “in fact he does not disagree with the rabbi” (Devarim §6). See also Rosin, Schrifterklärer, 55 and n. 4. According to Rosin (Rashbam, xxxvi, and 199 n. 20), the “young man” is the “first scribe,” that is, copyist, of the manuscript. 23 Note that Lockshin did not remark on additions made by Rashbam himself and began to take note of later interpolations only in the third volume of his translation ; he ignores the topic in the first two volumes (Genesis and Exodus). In Numbers and Deuteronomy Lockshin found only four other additions. As for eight other additions that are certainly not by Rashbam, all of them in Deuteronomy, see Lockshin, Deuteronomy, 209–18. They are : 1 : 2 (Passage 3); 2 : 4 (Passage 4); 2 : 14 (Passage 5); 2 : 20 (Passage 8); 3 : 11 (Passage 9); 3 : 24 (n. 58); 7 : 11 (Passage 10); and 11 : 10 (Passage 11). 24 Note that the Be’ur on Genesis, written by Solomon Dubno under Mendelssohn’s direction, quotes Rashbam by name and notes : “from ‘I, the young man’ is an addition by some student who wanted to corroborate Rashbam’s interpretation that ‘capable men’ has the sense of valor and control.” But in the Be’ur on Gen 45 : 28 Dubno quotes Rashbam by name, including the addition by “the young man” with no comment, and evidently believed that the entire passage was written by Rashbam himself. The Be’ur on Deuteronomy (written by Herz Homberg) ignores Rashbam’s glosses on the verses where “the young man” makes an entry. Nor is there any reference to Rashbam in any of the places where the handwriting or format indicates an addition. Mendelssohn had access to MS Breslau ; see Rosin, Schrifterklärer, 30.

20120412.1-huca80

“But It Seems to Me ; . . . but I Say ”

11

153

young man, [to] the manuscript commentary by our teacher. For Rabbi Eliezer of Beaugency explained to me its true meaning. And now I will return to the commentary of our Rabbi Samuel of blessed memory.” Here the author of these additions identifies himself as a student of Rabbi Eliezer of Beaugency and supports and explains Rashbam’s own interpretation. 4. Deuteronomy 2 : 4. The end of the comment on Deut 2 : 4 is a long addition that begins, “The above is the interpretation offered by our teacher. But to me, the young man, his interpretation of this verse does not make sense,” and concludes, “This is the true and accurate interpretation.” Here the “young man” is disputing Rashbam’s interpretation and offering his own alternative. 5. Deuteronomy 2 : 14. End of the comment on Deut 2 : 14 : “But I, the young man, say.” Here too he offers an alternative to Rashbam’s interpretation. 6. Numbers 20 : 10.

,Mimep elsh ta ob Kio hjmb odi tmrh tewb—Mim Mkl aicon hzh elsh Nmh ? Mim Mkl aicon hzh elsh Nmw Mta Mirobs :hmixo sek Krd ,Mhl rma za hjmh ta xq aoh Korb wodqh ol rmaw hmb hejw ,Nk hwm rma qpsmo omk hjmh takhb ala ,Mim onmm aicoi elsh Me orobdbw Nimah alo ,(8 liel) ozw robs hih ,(Mw) Mtrbdo aoh Korb wodqh ol rmaw hmo ;Midiprb hwew Mimep hkh Kklo ,hjmb hakhb elsh la rbdl—aoh Korb wodqh lw onocr aih la rbda—Nia Mao ,boj irh ,Mim aicoi Ma :qpsmo seko hmix Niek ,elsb ,otakh idi le Mim tacl hwm idi le Miksh aoh Korb wodqho .Nk irxa elsh wodqh rmaw ohzo .Miqidch Me qdqdm aoh Korb wodqhw ,wnen Nk i”peao ipl—elsh la Mkirobid idi le (12 Nlhl) inwidqhl ib Mtnmah al Nei :aoh Korb ,wrpmh ,ina itediw iplo .hrewh joxk olipa Miqidch Me qdqdm aohw ipl ina Kkipl ,aoh Korb wodqh irbd le robel ggow Ma ik hih al onibr hwmw .itwrpw omk hej onibr hwm ik wrpl qoqz SHALL WE GET WATER FOR YOU OUT OF THIS ROCK ? At the time when he lifted up his hand with the staff [to show it to the people,] HE HIT THE ROCK with it TWICE. Then, in anger and rage (hmxo sek Krd), he said to them, “Did you think that we would get water out of this rock for you ?” Moses said those words because he had doubts. He was mistaken about the meaning of what God had said to him (v. 8), “take the staff,” [because] he did not trust that by talking to the rock he would succeed in getting water from it. Rather he thought that [he would have to] hit [the rock] with his staff, as he had done in Rephidim (Exod 17 : 6). As for the fact that God had said to him (v. 8), “Talk [to the rock],” he thought that talking to the rock meant hitting it. That is why he hit the rock twice — just like [a person who is acting] in anger and rage (seko hmix Niek) — for he was in

20120412.1-huca80

154

Jonathan Jacobs

12

doubt, and he reasoned, “If the rock gives forth water [after I hit it,] well and good. If not, I will talk to the rock afterwards.” God supported Moses’ actions after the fact, [allowing] the water to flow from the rock when he hit it. Nevertheless, Moses was punished [for his error], for God is very strict with righteous people. That is the meaning of what God said (v. 12), “Because you did not trust Me enough to make Me holy [before the people of Israel],” by speaking to the rock. For God is very strict with righteous people, even for [departing from expected behavior] by a hair’s breadth. Because I, the interpreter, know that Moses, our rabbi, could not have transgressed God’s word except inadvertently, that is why I have to interpret that Moses, our teacher, was mistaken, as I have interpreted. In a long note, Lockshin ably demonstrates that this is a later interpolation.25 I will summarize his argument briefly, rearranging his points to match the order of the criteria presented above. First of all, a formula : Rashbam never refers to himself in his commentary as “I, the interpreter.” 26 Second, a double peshat explanation : according to the first explanation, Moses knew exactly what he was supposed to do with his staff ; according to the second interpretation, Moses is not sure what he is supposed to do with it. According to the first interpretation, Moses spoke in anger ; according to the second, he was “like in anger and rage,” but not really angry.27 Finally, an internal contradiction : the explanation in the addition contradicts what Rashbam writes elsewhere.28 Handwriting and format of the manuscript The next seven instances are passages where Rosin marked the text as an addition, based on the physical evidence of the manuscript. In five cases the addition was





25 See Lockshin, Leviticus and Numbers, 251 n. 20 ; Lockshin, “Job,” 94–97. 26 In many other places Rashbam refers to “the interpreter,” but only in the third person. In general he means Rashi ; in every instance the attitude toward the “interpreter’s” commentary is unfavorable. See Gen 1 : 1 ; 15 : 16 ; 24 : 21 ; 30 : 11 ; 33 : 18 ; 36 : 24 ; 49 : 8 ; Exod 2 : 2 ; 2 : 6 ; 12 : 17 ; 19 : 23 ; 33 : 14 ; Num 30 : 2–3. 27 The similarity between Rashbam’s hmoxo sek Krd and the phrase in the addition, hmix Niek seko, might suggest that the interpolator was not proposing an alternative to Rashbam’s explanation, but was glossing it. There may be a connection between the addition, which defends Moses, and Jewish-Christian polemics. On Rashbam’s attitude toward Moses in the context of JewishChristian polemics, see Touitou, Exegesis, 164–76. 28 The interpolator holds to the view that God allows the righteous no leeway. According to Lockshin, Rashbam rejects this notion in a number of places. See Lev 10 : 3 et passim. I do not believe that Lockshin actually demonstrates an essential contradiction between Rashbam’s position, which is rather vague in most cases, and the added passage here. Lockshin also contends that in all places where, according to the talmudic sages, Moses acted at his own initiative and the Lord ratified his action post factum, Rashbam does not accept their position ; and this is contrary to the tenor of the addition here.

20120412.1-huca80

13

“But It Seems to Me ; . . . but I Say ”

155

written in smaller letters, in the sixth case a page was left blank after the addition, and in the seventh case it was written in the margin. We can supplement Rosin’s testimony by the content of the passages, which in most cases does not correspond to Rashbam’s exegetical method. Note that the Berlin edition has no uniform policy regarding these additions.29 7. Numbers 35 : 31. Rashbam’s comment on Num 35 : 31 is followed by a passage that begins with the words, “in the baraita of Rabbi Eliezer.” Rosin notes : “All this is a later addition, written in the manuscript in smaller letters to distinguish it from Rashbam’s commentary before it and after it.” 30 In addition, the midrashic content of the passage is at odds with Rashbam’s exegetical principles. 8. Deuteronomy 2 : 20. Rashbam’s comment on Deut 2 : 20 is followed by a passage that begins, “In the chapter Elu trefot, in the gemara . . . and in Genesis Rabbah. . . .” Here Rosin notes that “these are aggadic passages and were written in the manuscripts in smaller letters in the places noted ; they have nothing to do with Rashbam’s commentary. Rather, the scribe wanted to offer aggadic explanations of the word Mioe, which Rashbam did not gloss.” 31 9. Deuteronomy 3 : 13. Rashbam’s comment on Deut 3 : 13 is followed by a passage that begins, “However, I heard.” Here Rosin remarks, “In this place, too, in the manuscript there is a copyist’s addition in smaller letters.” 32 Nor is the passage in the right place, as Rosin notes : “The correct place for this interpolation is after Rashbam’s comment on verse 11, to which it refers.” 33 10. Deuteronomy 7 : 11. Rashbam’s comment on Deut 7 : 11 is followed by : “In Midrash Yelammedenu . . . addition. In Midrash Sho˙er Tov, concerning. . . . In Yelammedenu. . . . Also in Yelammedenu and the Pesiqta . . . also in the Pesiqta. . . .” Rosin notes that “this is an aggadah at the end of the portion of Va’et˙anan, which the copyist added here in smaller letters.” 34 Here we have a string of several midrashim, with the explicit word “addition” in the middle. 11. Deuteronomy 11 : 10. In the middle of Rashbam’s comment on Deut 11 : 10 is a passage that begins, “IF THEN YOU OBEY. . . . In Midrash Shemuel it is similarly taught . . . ,” and concluding with the word “addition.” According to Rosin, “In



29 Some of them are incorporated into the body of the commentary : Exod 34 : 34 (Passage 12); Deut 3 : 13 (Passage 9); Deut 11 : 10 (Passage 11). One is in brackets : Deut 7 : 11 (Passage 10). Some of them are omitted : Deut 2 : 20 (Passage 8); Deut 18 : 11 (Passage 13). 30 Rosin, Rashbam, 197 ; Rosin, Schrifterklärer, 56 n. 9. A very similar formula to this addition is found in Óizkuni (Num 35 : 31). 31 See Rosin, Rashbam, 202 n. 16 ; Rosin, Schrifterklärer, 56 n. 21. The addition is not found in the Berlin edition. 32 See Rosin, Rashbam, 203 n. 2 ; Rosin, Schrifterklärer, 56 n. 1. 33 Rosin, Rashbam, 203 n. 13. 34 Rosin, Rashbam, 207 n. 6. In the Berlin edition this addition is in brackets.

20120412.1-huca80

156

Jonathan Jacobs

14

Manuscript I an aggadic passage, also quoted briefly by Rashi, was introduced here in the middle of Rashbam’s comment in order to bring them [sic] closer to the biblical text . . . . The beginning of the aggadah is written in large letters, like Rashbam’s interpretation ; but from the words ‘it is similarly taught’ it is in smaller letters.” 35 12. Exodus 34 : 34. After the comment on Exod 34 : 34 the manuscript continues, “Now, if you will forgive their sin — but if not, [erase me] from the book which You have written. Moses saw. . . .” This passage refers to Moses’ statement in 32 : 32 and is out of place. According to Rosin, “ Here in the manuscript there is an addition from the aggadah, which is not completed ; more than half of the next page was left blank. The early print editions incorporated it into what Rashbam writes at the end of the portion, in this place. It was left out, starting with the Amsterdam edition of 1729, and in most printings [that is, editions]. But the author of Keren Shemuel endeavored to explain it, believing it to be by Rashbam. In truth, it has absolutely nothing to do with his commentary.” 36 The location, the aggadic content, and the blank page that follows the addition all indicate that this passage was not written by Rashbam himself. 13. Deuteronomy 18 : 11. In the comment on Deut 18 : 11, after the words “the accent is on the ˙et,” Rosin notes, “Added here in the margin of the manuscript : ‘It is a noun and turned into a qamatz on account of the etna˙ta.’ This is signed with the initials JMW.” 37 Note that what is important about this group of additions is not their identification per se, given that all of them were noted and marked as such by Rosin and Lockshin, and some of them even earlier, by the author of Keren Shemuel. Their significance is rather that they prove that additions were made to the manuscript of Rashbam’s commentary, thereby justifying an investigation of other cases where no explicit evidence is provided by the interpolators or the format. We now turn to several other categories : first, seven instances in which there are two reasons to suspect an addition — a formula and a double interpretation ; second, four instances where the alternative interpretation is inserted in the middle of the comment, rather than at its end, and sometimes interrupts the logical flow (in some there is also an interpolation formula); third, two instances where the only reason to suspect an addition is the presence of two peshat interpretations. We recall that the fewer the criteria for suspecting an addition, the less certain we can be that a particular passage is an interpolation.

35 Rosin, Rashbam, 212 n. 4 ; Rosin, Schrifterklärer, 56 n. 2. 36 Rosin, Rashbam, 142 n. 9 ; Rosin, Schrifterklärer, 56 n. 2 ; Zalman, Keren Shemuel, Ki Tiś1a §13. 37 The Berlin edition omits this addition.

20120412.1-huca80

15

“But It Seems to Me ; . . . but I Say ”

157

I reiterate that in most instances it is impossible to determine whether the addition was contributed by Rashbam himself or by later students or copyists. Although some of them may have originated with Rashbam, in the absence of proof I ascribe them to later copyists. An interpolation formula and a double explanation 14. Genesis 37 : 28. Rashbam’s interpretation of the sale of Joseph, in his commentary on Gen 37 : 28, is well known.

Nm tcq oih Miqoxro ,Mxl lokal Mibwoi oihw Kotb—Miniidm Miwna orbeio oabw Mdoqo ,oarw Milaemwil oih Minitmmo ,Mdh le loka itlbl robh ohorkmo ,ohokwmo robb ohoaro ,Mw Krd Mirxa Miniidm Miwna orbe ,Milaemwih Mtrkm rwa btk rwa i”peao .oedi al Mixahw ,rmol wio .Milaemwil Miniidmh .otrikmb heiis Mhiwem tmrghw ,rmol wi ,(4 hm ’rb) hmircm itoa le :emwm—Miniidm Miwna orbeio ik ,arqm lw ojowp Krd qmoe ipl il harn hz .Milaemwil ohorkm Mho ,h»qm idi Kirc ,Nk Ma ,ohorkm oixa ik—Milaemwil Psoi [ta] orkmio rmol htab Ma Pao .Milaemwil ohorkm Nk rxao ,robh Nm okwoml Mirxos Miniidml ooic Mhw rmol MIDIANITE TRADERS PASSED BY : The brothers were at their meal, sitting some distance from the pit so as to refrain from “eating on the blood” (Leviticus 19 : 26), waiting for the Ishmaelites whom they had seen (v. 25). However, before those Ishmaelites arrived, different people — Midianites — passed by there, saw Joseph in the pit and pulled him out. These Midianites sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites. It is to be understood that the brothers did not know [of the sale]. Although it is written [that Joseph later said to his brothers] (Gen 45 : 4), “[I am . . . he] whom you sold unto Egypt,” that phrase is to be understood to mean that their actions indirectly led to his sale. To me, this represents the profound interpretation, following the plain meaning of Scripture. For the phrase, MIDIANITE TRADERS PASSED BY, implies that it happened by coincidence, and they sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites. Even if one were to insist on saying that THEY SOLD JOSEPH TO THE ISHMAELITES means that Joseph’s brothers sold him, one would still have to say that Joseph’s brothers first commanded the Midianites to pull Joseph out of the pit, and then sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites. Here Rashbam proposes an alternative to the manner in which the talmudic sages and Rashi understood the passage. According to him, Joseph was not sold by his brothers, but by Midianites who happened to pass the pit, pulled him out of it, and sold him to the Ishmaelites. This original interpretation allows

20120412.1-huca80

158

16

Jonathan Jacobs

Rashbam to solve the difficult problem of the relationship between the brothers, the Midianites, and the Ishmaelites, all of whom appear in vv. 26–28. This is followed by an attempt to explain the relationship between the brothers, the Midianites, and the Ishmaelites according to this common reading that it was the brothers who sold Joseph. This second explanation begins with the formula “even if one were to insist on saying,” found nowhere else in Rashbam’s commentary on the Torah, to introduce an alternative peshat. Unlike our previous cases, however, in which Rashbam presents an alternative peshat in order to reject it explicitly, here we have an attempt to reconcile the second interpretation with the biblical text rather than to refute it. All of this strongly suggests that the last passage was not written by Rashbam, but by a later interpolator, who wanted to find a way to make the standard interpretation overcome the problem mentioned by Rashbam. However, one might propose that Rashbam himself wrote this fragment, with a view to emphasizing that even those readers who do not accept his interpretation, preferring the generally accepted explanation, must still address the appearance of the Midianites in the verse. 15. Commentary on Exodus 30 : 23.

.(14 d w”hw) Mimwb iwar lk Me bitkdk ,Mibowx—war Mimwb ,(16 Mw) oimwb olzi ing ixiph bitkdk ,tonlia ilodig—Mimwb ik ,inieb harno .eqrqh Nm Niaicomw Mirbd oa ,Nlia Prw inim—war Mimwb lba .tonidm irxos lkb bowx—(5 h w”hw) rboe rom Nko ,bowx—rord rm CHOICE SPICES : war, [some have argued,] means “choice,” as in the phrase (Song of Songs 4 : 14) “All the choice perfumes (Mimwb iwar).” I, however, feel that the word “Mimwb — spices” generally refers to something grown on trees, as it is written (Song 4 : 16), “Blow upon my garden that its perfume (oimwb) may spread.” However, the term war Mimwb refers to the resins inside of a tree or to [spices] that grow in the ground. CHOICE MYRRH : rord means “choice.” So also [one may see that there are different gradations of myrrh, as myrrh is also modified by the word rboe] in the phrase (Song 5 : 5) “choice (rboe) myrrh,” that is, myrrh that would be accepted by merchants in all countries. Here we find two glosses for the word war : “important” and “root.” There is also the interpolation formula “I, however, feel.” 38 The original text of the commentary must have run as follows : “CHOICE SPICES : war means ‘choice’. . . . CHOICE MYRRH : rord means ‘choice’. . . .” 39 That is, Rashbam glossed the two difficult



38 The addition in the commentary on Num 7 : 3 (No. 19) uses the same expression. This phrase appears frequently in Rashbam’s commentaries, but never to introduce an alternative interpretation. See Gen 36 : 15, 24 ; Exod 17 : 15 ; 28 : 31, 36 ; Lev 18 : 9 ; Num 14 : 33. 39 I believe that there is a difference between the two verses that are quoted in the original ver-

20120412.1-huca80

17

“But It Seems to Me ; . . . but I Say ”

159

words in identical fashion : both mean “important.” The interpolated passage proposes an alternative meaning of war, in the sense of “root.” 40 16. Commentary on Leviticus 4 : 23.

”.edoh Ma“ omk—edoh oa .Mirxa idi le oila edoh oa ,Mwao :rmoa inao .wrpl Niligr Kk oila edoh oa : Like edoh Ma IF HE IS INFORMED. That is how the phrase is generally explained. But I say [that the word oa should be understood in its standard meaning of “or” and verse 23 continues the thought of v. 22 :“He sinned . . .] and he learned of his guilt (Mwao) or he was informed of his guilt” by others. Here we have two introductory formulas not found elsewhere in Rashbam’s commentary : “That is how the phrase is generally explained. But I say . . .” The first interpretation differs from the second in three respects. According to



sion. The first of them (Song 4 : 14) is easier to understand than the verse being glossed ; Rashbam uses the expression “similarly” (bitkdk), with the intention of supporting his explanation. The second verse cited (Song 5 : 5) is harder to understand than the verse being glossed ; Rashbam introduces it with “and so” ( Nko) and explains its meaning. When he quotes verses in this fashion Rashbam’s goal is to apply his new insight to the second verse as well. On the difference between quoted verses of this type see : Jonathan Jacobs, “‘Extrapolating One Word from Another’ : Rashbam as an Interpreter of the Bible on its Own Terms,” in Sara Japhet, ed., Shnaton : An Annual for Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies 17 (2007) 215–31 (Heb.) ; Jonathan Jacobs, “Inner-Biblical Exegesis in Rashbam’s Commentary on the Bible : Rashbam’s Terminology in Referring to a Cited Verse,” REJ 168 (2009) 463–80. Note that in Pseudo-Rashbam on Song of Songs, the comment on the first verse cited here (Song 4 : 14) is similar to the addition here :“tolhao rom, these are spices that grow in the ground in orchard plots, as the text proves, in that it has Mimwb iwar–lk Me, which means the roots of spices.” On the other hand, the gloss provided in Pseudo-Rashbam on Song of Songs for the second cited verse (5 : 5) differs from that proposed here :“rbe rom itebcao — this is synonymous parallelism with rom–opjn idi.” On the other hand, in his commentary on Gen 23 : 16 Rashbam explains the second cited verse as he does here : “Over laso˙er : Refined silver, acceptable payment for all kinds of merchandise. And so concerning Jehoiada it is written (2 Kgs 12 : 5) ‘current money’ (kesef over) — acceptable anywhere ; and (Song 5 : 5), ‘My fingers with choice myrrh’ (mor over) of good quality anywhere.” The question of whether the commentary on Song of Songs was written by Rashbam remains up in the air, and the present discussion sheds no light on the matter. 40 On the assumption that the second interpretation is a later addition, all of the problems raised by Itamar Kislev (“Hizkuni’s Commentary as a Textual Witness for Rashbam’s Torah Commentary,” in Moshe Bar-Asher, Dalit Rom-Shiloni, Emanuel Tov, Nili Vazana, eds., Shai Le-Sara Japhet, Studies in the Bible, its Exegesis and its Language [Jerusalem : Bialik Institute, 2007] 181 [Heb.]), are resolved. I would propose the following sequence of events : Rashbam wrote only the first interpretation in his commentary, according to which war Mimwb are choice spices, and rord also means “choice.” Next, the second, alternative interpretation was added to the manuscript by a student or copyist. A later copyist sensed the contradiction between the two glosses in the manuscript and corrected war Mimwb to Mims. It was the emended text that Óizkuni and Gan Elohim had before them (or perhaps they were responsible for the emendation ?).

20120412.1-huca80

160

18

Jonathan Jacobs

the first interpretation oa means “if ”; according to the second, it has its normal meaning, “or.” According to the second interpretation (but not the first) verse 23 is a continuation of verse 22. Again only according to the second interpretation, the law includes the case in which the chieftain is informed of his transgression by others. Apparently Rashbam originally recapitulated Rashi’s understanding of oa ; later, a note was added, offering an alternative. Here too, it is impossible to determine whether it was Rashbam himself, or some later hand, who added the alternative. 17. Commentary on Leviticus 21 : 1.

oimem hlotb omk ;Mda wpnl amji al Minhkh Meb wia—oimeb amji al wpnl amji al“ :emwm hih ”,oimel“ botk hih olia lba .(14 Nlhl) hwa xqi ,(7 o ’mb) Mhl amji al otoxalo oixal ,amji al wpnl botkw omk ”,oimel ”.Mhb“ rman alo .amji al oimeb acmnh wpnl :wrpl wi Mg oimeb amji al wpnl NO ONE SHALL DEFILE HIMSELF oimeb : [This means] no one from the company (Me) of priests should defile himself for [that is, through contact with] any [dead] human body. [The word oimeb in this verse is not a reference to the person who died, but to the subject of the sentence, the priest, and his “Me — company,”] as in the phrase (v. 14), “ he shall take a virgin oimem as a wife.” If the word read oimel, then it would [be a reference to the person who has died ; the verse would then] mean “ he should not defile himself for anyone from his [= the Jewish] people (Me).” [References to the bodies that are the source of defilement are always introduced by the letter lamed,] as in the phrase (in this verse), “amji al wpnl”— he shall not defile himself for ( l) any body.” [So also in the verse] (Num 6 : 7), “for his brother (oixal), for his sister (otoxalo), he shall not defile himself Mhl — for them.” The text [of those verses] does not read Mhb. It is also possible to interpret the phrase as meaning, “ he should not defile himself for any body (wpnl) that may be found oimeb — among his people.” The two interpretations differ as to the sense of oimeb. The first has it refer back to the subject of the verse, the “priestly nation”; the second sees it as designating the entire people of Israel. On the surface there is no important difference between the two. But the deeper significance becomes clear from the verse that Rashbam cites as a proof text : “He shall take a virgin from his people as a wife.” In the first reading, it follows that the high priest may marry a virgin of a priestly family only ;41 according to the second interpretation, the high priest

41 Zalman, Keren Shemuel, Emor §1 and Rosin (Rashbam, 163 n. 1) do not understand Rashbam to

20120412.1-huca80

19

“But It Seems to Me ; . . . but I Say ”

161

may marry any Israelite virgin. The latter reading, unlike the first, coincides with halakhah and may be a later addition. 18. Commentary on Leviticus 26 : 26.

.(3 ji boia) inomilkt Mimep rwe hz omk ;hbrh :rmolk—Miwn rwe .tp ronth ta alml lkot al txa hwa ik—dxa rontb olikahl ohobiwh lqwmbo ,rontl ohoaibh lqwmb ik—lqwmb Mkmxl obiwho hjm rbow innh Mda Nb bitkdk ,Cxl Mimo rc Mxl ,Mocmcbo lqwmb ,Milebl botk Nak Pa .(16 d ’xi) hrowmb Mimo hgadbo lqwmb Mxl olkao Milworib Mxl lqwmb ik—oebwt alo Mtlkao .lqwmb lwoR hØo ,Mxl hjm Mkl irbwb .oholkai Mocmcbo ik ,Mdah desio eibwi al ,hbrh onmm lkaiw i”pea ,Mxl otoaw ,rmol wi Mgo .ob acmt hƒè TEN WOMEN : In other words, many women. Just like (Job 19 : 3) “Ten times you humiliated me.” IN A SINGLE OVEN : For one woman will not have enough bread to fill up the oven. AND THEY SHALL COLLECT THEIR BREAD BY WEIGHT : The meaning is that they weigh the bread when they bring it to the oven, and then they weigh it when they take it out, in order to feed the owners [the correct] weighed-out and rationed portions —“meager bread and scant water” (Isaiah 30 : 20). So it is written (Ezekiel 4 : 16), “O mortal, I am going to break the staff of bread in Jerusalem, and they shall eat bread by weight, in anxiety, and drink water by measure.” Here [we should] also [understand our verse,] “when I break your staff of bread,” [in the same way. It means that] your bread will be both baked by weight and eaten by weight. THOUGH YOU EAT, YOU SHALL NOT BE SATISFIED : Because you will eat it in weighed-out and rationed portions. It is also possible to explain that the bread, even when eaten in large quantities, will not satisfy or satiate the one who eats it, because there will be a curse on it. Initially Rashbam explains the picture at length, drawing on the real situation : when the Lord curses Israel bread will be in short supply. The explanation stretches over multiple incipits and links all parts of the verse. The additional mean this. But there is no doubt that Luzzatto is right when he maintains that Rashbam holds that “according to the plain meaning she must be of the priestly caste”; see Shmuel David Luzzatto, Commentary on the Pentateuch (Jerusalem : Horev, 1993) 425. This was also how Rashbam was understood by Lockshin, Leviticus and Numbers, 115 n. 2. Lockshin, too, identified this passage as an addition ; see Lockshin, “Job,” 92–93 ; Lockshin, Leviticus and Numbers, 116 n. 3.

20120412.1-huca80

162

20

Jonathan Jacobs

explanation (which follows Rashi on this verse) proposes an understanding that diverges from the bare facts : even if there is ample bread, it will be accursed and will not satisfy their hunger. The added gloss refers only to the third part of the verse, is introduced by an interpolation formula, proposes a second peshat interpretation, and is inconsistent with Rashbam’s exegetical preference for explanations rooted in the real world.42 19. Commentary on Numbers 7 : 3.

.onine ipl onortp ;(20 os ’wi) Midrpb oa Mibcb omk—bc .Miqoxr Mikrdbo abcb Kolhl toioweh tolge :inieb harno bc : The word bc [in the phrase “wagons of bc”] should be understood [as a type of beast of burden that might pull a wagon,] like the word Mibc in the phrase (Isa 66 : 20), “on Mibc or mules.” The word [Mibc in that verse] should be interpreted according to the context. To me it seems that the phrase, “wagons of bc,” should be understood to mean wagons that are built in such a way that they could be used for travel for military purposes (abc) or for long journeys. To explain the word bc Rashbam begins by interpreting according to the context.43 This is followed by a gloss that depends on etymology rather than on the context : bc from abc. Because the second interpretation is introduced by an interpolation formula, is a second peshat, and employs an exegetical method that is fundamentally at variance with that use in the first interpretation, we may assume that it is an addition.44 20. Commentary on Deuteronomy 28 : 46.

.ohomk toihl oanowl llqm llqmhw—toal .aoh Korb wodqhl Mtdbe alw :rmol wi Mgo AS SIGNS : A person who curses his enemy will say that the enemy should become like you.



42 Lockshin, too (Leviticus and Numbers, 145 n. 19), thinks this is a later interpolation. 43 Rashbam does so frequently when he cannot find a verse to cite in support of his interpretation. See his commentary on Gen 41 : 23 ; 50 : 2 ; Exod 16 : 14, 31 ; 26 : 31 ; 27 : 10 ; Lev 26 : 36 ; Num 7 : 3 ; 18 : 19 ; Deut 3 : 4 ; 22 : 8 ; 32 : 24. 44 Lockshin, too, (Leviticus and Numbers, 177 n. 52), assumed that this is a later interpolation. According to the commentary on Eccl 2 : 8, “todwo hdw — like ldgmo hbit hdiw ‘ box, chest, or trunk’, meaning bc tolge ‘covered wagons’ for pleasure and beauty.” This interpretation contradicts the second interpretation here, which refers not to pleasure and beauty but to the army and long journeys. If the commentary on Ecclesiastes was written by Rashbam, this difference offers further proof that the second interpretation here is a later addition. But see above, n. 19. Note too that Bekhor-Shor offers a comment that is similar only to the first one here, while Óizkuni offers one similar to the second gloss only.

20120412.1-huca80

21

“But It Seems to Me ; . . . but I Say ”

163

It is also possible to say that [the verse means that you will become a “sign” or example of what happens to someone] who does not serve God [properly]. The difficulty in this verse is how the curses mentioned in the previous verse can be a sign and portent. According to the first interpretation “sign” refers to the person who is cursed, who will henceforth be cited as an example by those who wish to curse their enemies ; in other words, “you will be named as a sign and portent in such curses.” 45 According to the second interpretation, “sign” relates to the subject of the clause — the curses : the curses you suffer are a sign that you did not serve the Lord.46 Because the second interpretation is introduced by an interpolation formula and offers an alternative peshat understanding, it should be seen as an addition. Awkward or ungrammatical language The next four cases involve passages that are awkward or ungrammatical. In each instance, there are additional criteria that strengthen the thesis of a later interpolation. 21. Commentary on Genesis 25 : 23.

.aibn i”e—hl 'h rmaio Knjbb wi Mimoat inww libwb Klw robieh rec ik iarit la—Miog inw .dxa robiem Minw lw robieh rec hbormw .aoh Nowl lpk ,(11 xmq ’ht) Mimoal lko Cra iklm ’tkdk ,toiklm—Mimoal inwo .Mime aoh Mimoal lba .toditeh lk hl wripo rmg ,hl rmol lixth aibnhw Kotmo THE LORD ANSWERED HER : Through a prophet. TWO NATIONS :“Do not be afraid ; the discomfort of your pregnancy is because you are carrying twins. For the discomfort of a biparous pregnancy is greater than that of a uniparous pregnancy.” AND TWO Mimoal : Le’umim means kingdoms, as in the phrase (Psalm 148 : 11), “Kings (malkhe) of the earth and kingdoms (le’umim),” where iklm stands in synonymous parallelism ( Nowl lpk) to Mimoal. However, the word Mimoal (for example Ps 117 : 1) means peoples. Since the prophet began telling her things, he finished elaborating all the future events for her.

45 See a similar interpretation of Num 5 : 21. 46 This is how the second interpretation is understood by Rosin (Rashbam, 224 n. 16) and by Lockshin (Deuteronomy, 160). Lockshin (Deuteronomy, 160 n. 53) assumes that it is an addition. In the Berlin edition the addition is printed in parentheses. According to Zalman, Keren Shemuel, Ki Tavo §9, “I do not know why the copyists wanted to delete the second interpretation.”

20120412.1-huca80

164

22

Jonathan Jacobs

When she goes to inquire of the Lord, Rebecca receives a response that, according to the Rashbam, includes an answer to her current distress but also alludes to events in the distant future. Rashbam begins by relating the oracle to her current distress — the two nations are the two twins. Next he explains the allusion to the far future : the two nations represent two kingdoms. Finally, he explains why Rebecca receives an answer to a question she had not asked. Rashbam supports his gloss of le’umim as parallel to “ kingdoms” from a verse in Psalms : “Kings of the earth and kingdoms” (Ps 148 : 11). In his opinion the two parts of the verse are in synonymous parallelism ( his term is Nowl lpk).47 Note that without the addition that begins with “ however” the explanation seems to be complete and clear. The addition proposes an alternative understanding of the word Mimoal —“peoples” rather than “ kingdoms.” Both Rosin and Lockshin offer harmonizing (but farfetched) solutions to resolve the contradiction between the two explanations.48 But it seems more plausible — because the addition contradicts what Rashbam has just written, because of the adversative “ however,” and because the addition interrupts the flow of the explanation — that this is a gloss, by a later hand, that was incorporated into the body of the commentary by a copyist. 22. Commentary on Exodus 16 : 15.

Pos ik ,Nk rtp wnod Mgo ;aoh hm oedi alw ipl—aoh Nm oixa la wia ormaio .aoh hm oedi al ik :xikom arqmh ”.im“ lw omogrt aoh Nm :rmoa inao otoab hwm obtk ,hm omk aohw Miligr oih Nowl otoabo ,ircm Nowl aohw iplo oihw le ,(al ,Nlhl) Nm omw ta larwi. . . oarqio Kkiplw oneidohl ,ormaw Nowl …aoh hm omk ,aoh Nm :Mirmoao Mihimt THEY SAID ONE TO ANOTHER aoh Nm — [which means “WHAT IS IT ?”] : because they did not know what it was. Dunash also explains the phrase that way. The continuation of the verse, FOR THEY DID NOT KNOW WHAT IT WAS, proves [that this is the correct interpretation of the phrase aoh Nm]. However I say that Nm actually means “who” [not “what”] in Aramaic.



47 Rashbam frequently relies on parallel stichoi to gloss difficult words ; in many cases the parallel is not between entire stichoi but between individual words. See for example, his comments on Gen 36 : 24 ; Exod 1 : 22 ; 14 : 11 ; Num 3 : 9. See also Jair Haas, “Synonymous Parallelism as an Exegetical Method and Awareness of Poetry as a Literary Genre in Rashbam’s Commentaries,” Beit Mikra 170 (2002) 281–83 (Heb.). 48 Rosin (Rashbam, 27 nn. 14–15) suggests that here Nowl lpk does not refer to the verse cited from Psalms, as I read it, but to the parallel between Miog and Mimoal. According to him, “ However, the word Mimoal means peoples” is how Rashbam distinguishes between these two words. Lockshin accepts the reading favored by Solomon Dubno in the Be’ur — Mimoa instead of Mimoal — which eliminates the internal contradiction in Rashbam. See Lockshin, Genesis, 133 n. 3.

20120412.1-huca80

23

“But It Seems to Me ; . . . but I Say ”

165

But since this phrase is written in the Egyptian language and in that language the common meaning of Nm is “what,” Moses wrote the phrase in the precise language that the people said it. He did that in order to inform us that this is why (v. 31) “The house of Israel called it Nm (manna),” because they were wondering [what it was,] and they said “aoh Nm — what is it ?” Here Rashbam has a double goal : to gloss the difficult word Nm and to explain the sense of the entire verse. According to him, man is Egyptian for “what.” The Israelites, who were accustomed to speaking Egyptian, asked each other man hu — that is, “what is this ?!” According to Rashbam the verse is an anticipatory statement to support what we will later read in verse 31.49 This discussion of man = “what” is interrupted by a sentence that begins with the formulaic “ however I say” and rejects the idea, just proposed, claiming instead that the word man is an Aramaism. Thus we have two reasons for seeing the sentence as a marginal comment that was later incorporated into the body of the commentary.50 23. Commentary on Leviticus 15 : 23.

egon oniaw i”pea ,hlw srdm le bwoih oa bkowh—'ogo aoh bkwmh le Mao oninww omk .breh de amji ob oegonb .Niqwmo Nilkoa amjl .breh de amji ,ob de amji ob oegnb .Niqwmo Nilkoa amjl Mda amjm bz lw onoilew hdin tksmb ,Midgb amjl aàmp alo .breh de amji ,bkrmb egn olipa oa :rmolk—breh egonh alo ,oidgb amjl Mda amjm oawonhw ;oawmm oegm qlx bkrmhw .bkrmb Mimkx owrip—oile tbwoi aih rwao .oidgb alb Mdah ala amjm IF HE IS ON THE BED : That is, if he is lying or sitting on something that is [impure because of ] her midras, even if he is not touching it . ON TOUCHING



49 On anticipatory verses whose purpose is to support a later verse, see Jacobs, “Anticipation,” 468– 71. At the end of this comment Rashbam quotes an anticipatory verse in Esther, which employs and then glosses an arcane word so that a later verse will make sense. 50 Bekhor-Shor, Óizkuni, and Hadar-zeqenim offer an interpretation very similar to Rashbam’s, but without the suggestion that man is a translation of mi. It is quite likely, if so, that they knew Rashbam’s commentary but not the later addition. See also R. Joseph Kimchi, Sefer Ha-Galui, ed. Henry Mathews (Berlin : Mekize Nirdamim, 1887) 15. Zalman, Keren Shemuel, B’shalah. §20, Martin Lockshin (Exodus, 174 n. 24), Sara Japhet (“Multi-lingualism, Theory and Practice, in Rashbam’s Biblical Commentaries,” Aharon Maman, Shmuel Fassberg, eds., Language Studies 8, In Memory of David Tene [Jerusalem : Magnes, 2001] 297 [Heb.]), all suggested ways of incorporating the gloss into Rashbam’s comment, but I do not believe that their solutions are satisfactory.

20120412.1-huca80

166

24

Jonathan Jacobs

IT HE SHALL BE IMPURE UNTIL EVENING : That is, or even if he touched an item which is impure because of merkav. [In such a case] he shall be impure until evening, but not so impure as to make his clothing impure. For when dealing with merkav impurity, there is a distinction between someone who touches the impure item and someone who carries it. He who carries it becomes impure, and so does his clothing ; he who touches it becomes impure but his clothing does not. The Rabbis interpreted [that the topic being discussed here is] merkav impurity, based on the words UPON WHICH SHE SAT. The italicized passage is in the manuscript, but Rosin sensed its secondary nature.51 Rosin notes two criteria that mark the passage as in interpolation : first, it contradicts Rashbam’s interpretation, which follows immediately ; second, it is dropped into the middle of what Rashbam wrote and corrupts the entire comment. Clearly Rosin was correct to exclude the passage from the body of the commentary and relegate it to a note. 24. Commentary on Numbers 5 : 31.

.hb aniqw ionæ idi le oz tonerop hl Mrgw i”pea—Noem wiah hqino al qtw oliao ;oitxt hnzm toihl otwa lbs alw—Noem wiah hqno :harn ilo .ol hrosa aihw ,Noem hqonm hih .htonerop hlbiq Kkiplo ,htniz irhw—hnooe ta awt aih ala THE MAN SHALL BE CLEAR OF GUILT : even though he is the one who brought this calamity upon her, through the warning that he gave her. But I think that the verse means that “the man shall be clear of guilt” because he did not tolerate his wife’s infidelity. If he had held his peace [and continued to have intercourse with his unfaithful wife], then he would not be clear of guilt, for it is forbidden for him to do so. Rather she BEARS RESPONSIBILITY FOR HER OWN PUNISHMENT. She was punished because of her infidelity. Rashi offers two interpretations of this verse. The difference between the two explanations is the sense given to the word Noe. According to the first it means “punishment”; according to the second, “transgression.” The first explanation in Rashbam corresponds to the first explanation offered by his grandfather : the husband has no guilt and will not be punished, even though he caused his wife’s death. Rashbam’s commentary then offers a second explanation similar (though not identical) to Rashi’s alternative explanation : the husband will be guiltless, because he refrained from having relations with his unfaithful wife. But the last sentence in Rashbam’s commentary links up with the first explanation, with

51 Rosin, Rashbam, 158 n. 15 ; Rosin, Schrifterklärer, 56 n. 10. See also Lockshin, Leviticus and Numbers, 83 n. 29.

20120412.1-huca80

25

“But It Seems to Me ; . . . but I Say ”

167

regard both to content and language, because it returns to the punishment meted out to the unfaithful wife. Thus we have several reasons for suspecting that this is a later interpolation : the introductory formula “but I think”; the presence of two separate interpretations ; and the awkward interruption of Rashbam’s first interpretation. Here too we seem to be dealing with a marginalium that was later interpolated into the commentary — and in the wrong place at that.52 Double interpretations In the next two examples the only basis for assuming that they are later additions is the existence of two peshat interpretations, one after the other. As noted earlier, we take it as axiomatic that Rashbam never offered multiple peshat interpretations of the same passage. 25. Commentary on Genesis 18 : 5. When Abraham greets his visitors he tell them, “‘and let me fetch a morsel of bread that you may refresh yourselves ; then go on — seeing that you have come your servant’s way.’ They replied, ‘Do as you have said’” (Gen 18 : 5). But when he actually serves them the meal the promised bread is not mentioned, although the other items are : “He took curds and milk and the calf that had been prepared and set these before them” (v. 8). According to Rashbam on this verse,

Mxl tp ta aibhw wrpl Krcoh al ,arqm lw ojowp ipl—blxo hamx xqio .aibhw rmol Krcoh ,Mhl rma alw ,tpsoth ala ,Nxlwh le lkl Nmozm oniaw ,rwbho blxho hamxh lba ,wodix onia Nxlwh le tp t(I .wrpl Krcoh ,Mixroah HE TOOK CURDS AND MILK : Following the plain meaning of Scripture, it was not necessary for the text to state explicitly that he brought the bread [that he had promised in v. 5] to the table. The text needs to enumerate only those things that he brought in addition to that which he promised. That he brought bread to the table is self-understood. That he brought curds, milk and meat — not the usual fare for guests — has to be stated explicitly. At first sight, this is a single long comment that seeks to resolve the mystery of the disappearing bread. On a second look, however, there are two separate explanations with a subtle distinction between them. According to the first one, the bread is not mentioned again because Abraham had already promised to bring it, but not the other items ; hence only the latter must be specified now. According to the second interpretation, however, the bread is passed over in

52 Lockshin (“Job,” 93–94 ; Leviticus and Numbers, 172 n. 25) considers this passage to be a later interpolation, although he does not sharpen the difference between the two suggested meanings. Only the second is found in Óizkuni.

20120412.1-huca80

168

Jonathan Jacobs

26

silence because the Torah enumerates only the unusual items. Serving bread to guests is a matter of course and goes without saying ; but the other items are not normal fare and do need to be stated explicitly. If we assume that Rashbam would not offer two parallel peshat interpretations, one of them (the second ?) must be a later interpolation into the body of the commentary.53 26. Deuteronomy 5 : 12.

Mimi tww ik ,Minowarh torbdb Mejh wrpmw hm :rmolk—Kihla 'h Koc rwak .(11 k ’mw) ’ogo Crah tao Mimwh ta 'h hwe 'h Koc rwak :Mhb rman ,Mh ”hwe“ tQcm Mao ba dobiko tbw trimww libwbo rmol ioar Nia ”,Nioal“ trhza Nhw ,torbd raw lkb lba ;(16 Nlhl Nko) Kihla alw ”Kocm“ onicm al lba—(11 z ’bd) Mtowel Moih Kocm bitkdk ;”Koc rwak“ .towel AS THE LORD YOUR GOD COMMANDED YOU : In other words [keep the Sabbath] as was explained in the first [version found in the Torah (Exodus 20) of the] Decalogue, “for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth . . .” (Exod 20 : 11). Since observing the Sabbath and honoring parents are positive commandments, that is why the phrase, “as the LORD your God commanded you” is written in reference to them. It would have been inappropriate, however, to write [the phrase] “as the LORD your God commanded you” concerning the other [eight] commandments, since they are negative commandments. So it is written (Deut 7 : 11), “I am commanding you today to do.” We never find the phrase “I am commanding you” in reference to refraining from doing something. Here Rosin writes : The entire passage from “since observing the Sabbath” through “refraining from doing something” is not in MS I. It may be an addition by a student, because it is contradicted by an explicit biblical text : “any of the Lord’s commandments about things not to be done” (Lev 4 : 2). It also seems to be a second explanation of the words “as the Lord your God commanded you,” which Rashbam has just glossed at the start of this passage.54

53 I would like to thank Dr. Itamar Kislev, who brought this example to my attention. Óizkuni offers an explanation similar to the first one found in Rashbam. 54 Rosin, Rashbam, 205 n. 12. Lockshin, Deuteronomy, 60 n. 30, accepted Rosin’s conjecture. The second explanation is not in the Berlin edition, which is evidently based only on the first manuscript used by Rosin. Both explanations are found in Óizkuni, but the second is introduced by a”d “another suggestion,” which means that Óizkuni, too, saw them as two separate explanations. See also Kislev, “Hizkuni,” 186–87.

20120412.1-huca80

“But It Seems to Me ; . . . but I Say ”

27

169

We do seem to be dealing with two distinct explanations for the addition of “as the Lord your God commanded you” to the version of the Decalogue in Deuteronomy. According to the first explanation, Moses added this phrase only to those precepts for which a rationale was offered in the first version of the Ten Commandments. According to the second explanation, Moses added the phrase only for positive precepts, and the first version of the Decalogue is irrelevant. In this instance, Rosin’s testimony about the manuscript supports the conjecture that this is a later addition. Addition of midrashim I would like to conclude with an example that shows how difficult it can be to decide whether a passage is an addition or an original interpretation. 27. Genesis 45 : 23.

.oxirjhl hcr al ,Mhme rzx Niminbw i”peao .oixa hrwel—Miromx hrwe ? Nlnm ,hab aih ,oant Milwho ,iant le olipa Mkx tllq domltb Nnirma

.’oko Norab Nilglogm oitomce oih ,oibal Niminb ta rizxhw i”peaw ,hdohim TEN HE-ASSES : One for each of his ten brothers. Although Benjamin also returned with them, Joseph did not want to burden him. [One can prove that Benjamin did return to Canaan for] the Talmud says (Mak 11a–b): “The curse of a scholar is fulfilled even if it is made on condition and the condition is fulfilled. How does one know this ? From Judah, whose bones rattled in the coffin even though he brought Benjamin back to Canaan.” Rosin relegates the second paragraph to a note.55 He makes two assumptions : first, that this is a later addition ; second, that it is in the wrong place. The reason for the first assumption is that quoting aggadic material is not typical of Rashbam’s exegetical method. The second assumption seems to indicate that Rosin saw no link between the verse being glossed and the homily and consequently thought it was meant to refer to the end of chapter 44. Both of these assumptions require further scrutiny, however. Both parts of the comment are paraphrased in Moshav zeqenim and by R. Óayyim Paltiel. This is how it appears in the latter :

iant le ’ipa Mkx tllq ik Mowmo .oxirjhl hcr al Mhme rzx Nimiinbw 'ipao .onorab Milglogm oitomce oih Mhme Nimiinb rzxw i”pea ,hdohim Nlnm ,hab And even though Benjamin returned with them, he did not want to burden him. And because the curse of a scholar is fulfilled even if it is conditional — how do we know this ? From Judah : even though he brought

55 Rosin, Rashbam, 64 n. 17 ; Rosin, Schrifterklärer, 56 nn. 2, 4. About the curse see Gen 43 : 9.

20120412.1-huca80

170

28

Jonathan Jacobs

Benjamin back with him, his bones rattled in his coffin. The linguistic echoes prove that Paltiel was quoting Rashbam, albeit without attribution.56 The passage is also found in Moshav zeqenim :

bokrl Miromxh Mhl Ntn ald l"io .Mhme hih Niminb ik oih Mixa a”i ah hmit ,Mhirxa rmxm toihl oromx dxa lkl oniiho ,Mxlo Nozmo rb tawl ala Mhile hml k”a [Mhme] Niminb hih Maw hz le hwqo .oxirjhl alw hcr al Niminblo tllqw inpm hleml onrmaw omk l”no ,onobre Mliw rbk alho ,hdohi Nodin .hab aih iant le ’ipa Mkx We have a question ! There were eleven brothers, because Benjamin was with them. One can say that [Joseph] did not give them donkeys to ride on but to carry grain and food and bread, so each of them had his own donkey to drive, but not Benjamin, so as not to burden him. This is difficult, because if Benjamin was [with them] why was Judah judged, for he had already repaid his pledge. It seems to me, as we said above,57 that it is because the curse of a scholar, even if it is conditional, is fulfilled. Although it is not even a close paraphrase — the author provides both the question and answer in greater detail — this passage, too, is based on Rashbam’s commentary.58 It clearly states the link between the talmudic homily and our verse : in the context of the reference to Benjamin’s return to Canaan — evidence that Judah fulfilled his promise to his father — the question arises of why Judah had to pay off his “debt”; and the answer, based on the words of the Sages, is that “the curse of a scholar, even if it is conditional, is fulfilled.” The fact that these Tosafists echo Rashbam indicates that the entire explanation was already included in the text of his commentary available to them. Thus Rosin’s assumption that it is out of place is untenable. But was the entire passage written by Rashbam ? Or is the aggadic part an addition by someone else that was interpolated into the commentary at a very early stage ? The fact that these Tosafists quoted the passage in full and considered its two parts to be connected seems to tilt the balance in favor of the former hypothesis. On the other hand, its aggadic nature, foreign to Rashbam’s exegetical method, favors the second possibility. Without additional evidence I see no way of deciding between the two.59

56 R. Óayyim Paltiel frequently quoted Rashbam’s commentary. See Lange’s note in his introduction to Paltiel’s commentary, p. 10 and n. 3. 57 See Paltiel’s commentary on 43 : 9. 58 See something similar in azr xnep rps and in Miworipo Mijwp rps. 59 See also Lockshin, Genesis, 317 n. 4. Rosin (Rashbam, 203 n. 18), marks another passage as an addition based on the assumption that Rashbam did not incorporate aggadah into his commen-

20120412.1-huca80

29

“But It Seems to Me ; . . . but I Say ”

171

Conclusions In this article I have presented seven criteria that can be used to identify additions and offered twenty-seven passages in Rashbam’s commentary, taken from all five books of the Pentateuch, that can be attributed to later hands.60 The identification of passages that were not written by Rashbam himself allows us to extract the author’s original commentary and eliminate spurious contradictions between Rashbam’s own explanations and those added by others. As noted at the outset, without the manuscripts it is difficult to make any definite statements about the additions to Rashbam’s commentary on the Torah. There are grounds for disputing some of the instances discussed here, for adding others, and especially for scholars to continue to debate the issue. I conclude with two thoughts that require further consideration. First, it is known that Rashbam’s commentary did not circulate widely. It survived in only a single manuscript, was not printed until 1705 (some 250 years after the invention of printing), and spawned very few supercommentaries. All of this attests to its lack of popularity. Nevertheless, it does seem to have enjoyed major attention right after its composition, to judge by the many quotations from it to be found in the writings of the Tosafists. It may be that the data presented here, evidence of the relative frequency of later additions to the manuscript, also prove that students and copyists were dealing with this commentary. Second, many of the additions are identical to explanations offered by Abraham Ibn Ezra. The connection between these two figures has long occupied biblical scholars. Rashbam makes no mention in his writings of Ibn Ezra, and Ibn Ezra does not refer to any commentaries of Rashbam that are known to us. All research concerning the relationship between Rashbam and Ibn Ezra has focused to date on the question of whether Ibn Ezra was familiar with Rashbam’s commentary on the Torah.61 However, surprisingly enough, no significant



tary. At the end of the comment on Deut 3 : 24 Rosin relegated a passage to a note, with the comment that “this is an aggadah relevant to the beginning of the portion of Va’eth.anan, which the scribe interpolated here.” See also Rosin, Schrifterklärer, 56 n. 2. Lockshin (Deuteronomy, 50 n. 3, 215 n. 36) accepted Rosin’s conjecture. In the Berlin edition this passage is printed in the body of the commentary. 60 Six in Genesis, three in Exodus, four in Leviticus, four in Numbers, and ten in Deuteronomy. 61 See : Eliezer Margalioth, “The Relationship between Rashbam’s and Ibn Ezra’s Commentaries on the Pentateuch” (Heb.), Moshe David Cassuto, ed., Asaph Festschrift (Jerusalem : Kiryat-Sefer, 1953) 357–69 ; Uriel Simon, “Ibn Ezra and Kimhi : Two Approaches to the Masoretic Text,” Bar-Ilan 6 (1986) 130–36 (Heb.) ; Aaron Mondschein, “Concerning the Inter-relationship of the Commentaries of R. Abraham Ibn Ezra and R. Samuel b. Meir to the Pentateuch : A New Appraisal” (Heb.), Te’udah 16–17 (2001) 15–46.

20120412.1-huca80

172

Jonathan Jacobs

30

attention has been devoted to the inverse connection — That is, whether Rashbam’s writings make any reference to the biblical commentaries of Ibn Ezra. Demonstrating that the additions to Rashbam’s commentary depend on Ibn Ezra’s commentaries might shed new light on the question of whether Rashbam was familiar with Ibn Ezra’s commentary on the Torah.62

I would like to thank Prof. Yosef Ofer and Dr. Itamar Kislev who read earlier drafts of this paper. Although their comments made a major contribution to improving it, ultimately I am responsible for what is written here.



62 See : Jonathan Jacobs, “Does Rashbam’s Commentary on the Torah Acknowledge the Commentaries of Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra ?,” JJS 61 (2010) 291–304 (Heb.) ; Itamar Kislev, “‘Exegesis in Perpetual Motion’: The Short Commentary of Ibn Ezra as a Source for Rashbam in his Commentary on the Pentateuch,” TarbiΩ 79 (2010–11) 413–38.

20120412.1-huca80