Great Biblical Commentators

Biographies, Methodologies, and Contributions
Avigail Rock

Translated by
Yoseif Bloch

Maggid Books
 Great Biblical Commentators
Biographies, Methodologies, and Contributions
First Edition, 2023
Maggid Books
An imprint of Koren Publishers Jerusalem Ltd.
POB 8531, New Milford, ct 06776-8531, usa
& POB 4044, Jerusalem 9104001, Israel
www.maggidbooks.com
© Estate of Avigail Rock, 2023
Cover Image designed by Eliyahu Misgav
The publication of this book was made possible through
the generous support of The Jewish Book Trust.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by
any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, or otherwise,
without the prior permission of the publisher, except in the case
of brief quotations embedded in critical articles or reviews.
isbn 978-1-59264-607-4, hardcover
Printed and bound in the United States
 In loving memory of Irving and Beatrice Stone,
who dedicated their lives to the
advancement of Jewish education.
We are proud and honored to continue in their legacy.

Their Children, Grandchildren, and Great-Grandchildren

Jerusalem, Israel
Cleveland, Ohio USA
 

Harabanit Dr. Avigail Rock z”l

"‫"פיה פתחה בחכמה ותורת חסד על לשונה‬
For over a decade it was an honor and a privilege
to have Dr. Avigail Rock z”l teach our Tuesday morning
women’s Torah class in English in Modiin. Each week we were rewarded
by Avigail’s depth of knowledge, her contagious laugh and her immense
love of Torah and learning. There was nothing in the vast world of
Tanakh scholarship that Avigail could not teach us, and nothing
we did not want to learn from her. My husband and I hope that
with this translation of Parshanei Hamikra, Avigail’s wisdom
and spirit and joy in Torah will reach a greater audience.
We hope that it inspires them as much as the precious years
learning with Avigail did for those of us in her Tuesday morning class.
With tremendous hakarat hatov,
Tzivia and Aryeh Bak

•
Avigail was an amazing person and teacher,
an inspiration to everyone who listened to her words of Torah.
She made everything come alive through her words.
She had such a tremendous knowledge of Torah and could easily recite
information by heart. She made you love Torah as much as she did.
Diana and Ron Ostroff

•
In memory of my teacher ‫הרבנית ד''ר אביגיל ראק‬.
An inspiration and role model who was gifted
to bring ‫ תנ"ך‬to life for many.
May this ‫ ספר‬continue to inspire people with her teachings.
Shoshana and Steven Arnold
In Memoriam

The words of the righteous are their memorial.

(Y. Shekalim 2:5; Rambam, Hilkhot Avel 4:4)

May this volume stand in memoriam for my wife, Rabbanit Dr. Avigail
Rock, who was taken from us early in life and is unable to witness the
publication of her work.
Avigail z”l was a Torah scholar whose devotion preceded her
erudition. She was a sought-after Tanakh instructor and a beloved
teacher who, in her too-short time on earth, inspired thousands of
students, young women and men, in a lasting, profound way. Her
female students in particular, whatever their age, saw her as their
spiritual role model. It was not only the content of her lessons, unique
in their breadth and depth, that set her apart; in addition, perhaps
primarily, she breathed life into every topic she discussed, touching
the hearts of everyone who had the privilege of learning from her.
However, the greatest impression Avigail z”l left was upon us,
her family. The values by which we live our lives were shaped mainly
by her inspiration. Our children, to whom Avigail dedicated this vol-
ume, continue to grow independently, thank God, as they build their
personal worlds of values which they have drawn from her. During
our twenty-three years together, Avigail was also my inspiration and
guiding light.

ix
Great Biblical Commentators

All we who study and preserve her lessons – her family, her stu-
dents, and the readers of this book – create a living memorial to her
and her Torah.
Yehuda Rock

x
Contents

Preface by Yehuda Rock. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii

  1. Biblical Translations and Targum Onkelos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2. Saadia Gaon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3. Rabbi Yona ibn Janaĥ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
  4. Rashi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
5. Rabbi Yosef Kara. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
6. Rashbam. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
7. Rabbi Yosef Bekhor Shor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
   8. Summary of Exegesis of Northern France and
Introduction to Spanish Exegesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
9. Rabbi Avraham ibn Ezra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
10. Rabbi David Kimhi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
11. R amban. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
12. Ĥizkuni – Rabbi Hezekiah ben Manoah. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247

xi
13. Rabbi Yosef ibn Caspi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260
14. R albag. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273
15. Abarbanel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284
16. Sforno . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298
17. Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313
18. Rabbi Yaakov Tzvi Mecklenburg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327
19. Shadal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341
20. Malbim. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357
21. The Netziv . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 372
22. Rabbi David Tzvi Hoffmann. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387
23. Prof. Moshe David Cassuto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 405
24. Rabbi Mordechai Breuer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 417

xii
Preface

T o the best of my knowledge, there is no existing work which is

comparable to this volume by Avigail z”l in its scope, depth, and method
of presentation.
Of course, much has been written analyzing biblical exegesis
(parshanut) and exegetes (parshanim). However, most studies deal-
ing with parshanim focus on a single commentator or on a particular
school of commentators. In-depth, comprehensive studies of specific
commentators are easily found, especially when it comes to key par-
shanim such as Rashi and Ramban. In this context, it is worth noting
E. Z. Melamed’s book, Bible Commentators: Their Ways and Methods
[Hebrew] ( Jerusalem, 1975), which includes comprehensive and par-
ticularly detailed reviews of five key commentators.
The entry on parshanut in Encyclopedia Mikra’it, which was
made into a brief volume entitled Jewish Bible Exegesis: An Introduction
( Jerusalem, 1983), contains overviews of a more comprehensive list of
parshanim. This collection is significant in terms of the scope of exe-
getes it deals with, as well as its expansion on tangential issues, such as
interaction with Christian interpretation. Thus, it provides a good pic-
ture of the world of biblical commentators in their historical contexts.
However, as required by the original encyclopedic context, it touches
on individual commentators relatively briefly, in a condensed manner,

xiii
Great Biblical Commentators

summarizing facts and conclusions from research without elaborating

through discussion or citation of sources or examples.
On the other hand, the book you hold in your hands contains
thorough and comprehensive studies of over twenty parshanim. In addi-
tion to biographical and historical details, the studies include extensive
work on the commentator’s exegetical methods, his interactions with
his historical period and environment, and his contribution to the world
of exegesis.
Moreover, the studies’ goal is not purely informational. In the
chapter on Rashi, Avigail z”l writes about Rashi as an educator; an
educational, value-oriented objective is also especially characteristic of
Avigail’s teachings, and it is reflected in the analysis here. Each chapter
discusses, demonstrates, and imparts the methods of the commentator,
as well as his importance to the student and the teacher, in a friendly,
engaging style. I think that anyone wishing to approach the study of
parshanut as a living experience of Torah study, on the basis of solid
research, will find what they are looking for here.
Avigail z”l initially wrote the chapters of this book in the form of
short articles (shiurim) for the Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash of
Yeshivat Har Etzion. With the assistance of our friends Yael and Reuven
Ziegler, Avigail began working with Maggid Books on initial steps
toward collecting and editing the articles into book form. She wrote the
dedication to our children and added the introduction below. Avigail
asked Dr. Michal Dell to compose the chapter on HaKetav VeHakabbala,
which Avigail was already too weak to write herself.
All the chapters of this book are the work of Avigail z”l, except
for two: the chapter on Rav Mordechai Breuer, which I wrote as part
of the series published by the Virtual Beit Midrash, and the chapter on
HaKetav VeHakabbala written for this book, as mentioned above, by
Michal Dell, at Avigail’s request. I thank Michal for this.
The chapters are generally arranged in the chronological order of
the commentators in question. However, within the period of the Rishonim,
the chapter on R. Yosef Bekhor Shor precedes the chapter on R. Avraham
ibn Ezra, in order to conclude the commentators from northern France
(excluding Ĥizkuni, whose time and place are uncertain) before moving
on to the Spanish commentators (excluding R. Yona ibn Janaĥ, whose

xiv
 Preface

writing is not commentary exactly; the chapter on him appears earlier,

in its chronological place). Between these two units, a chapter discusses
generally the commentators of France and the commentators of Spain.
The chapter on R. Hirsch is also out of strict chronological sequence, for
the reason set forth therein.
In the Introduction below, Avigail z”l thanked the staff of the
Virtual Beit Midrash for producing the original series of shiurim. She
also left a note to herself to thank Maggid Books and those who would
be involved in publishing this book. I would like to join her in expressing
gratitude to the publishers, translators, and editors for their contribu-
tions and excellent work on the book, in particular translator R. Yoseif
Bloch, poetry translator Sara Daniel, and editors Ita Olesker, Caryn
Meltz, and Leah Goldstein.
I would also like to offer personal thanks to Yael Ziegler, Jordana
and Kalman Schoor, and Marc and Tamar Lesnick, for their support
and assistance in producing the original Hebrew book, in commemo-
rating the teachings and memory of Avigail z”l, and in supporting our
family in general. Thanks also to the Weiss family of Cleveland and
Jerusalem, as well as Tzivi and Aryeh Bak, Shoshana and Steven Arnold,
and Diana and Ron Ostroff, for their support for this English transla-
tion and publication, making it possible for a wider audience to benefit
from Avigail’s Torah.

Yehuda Rock

xv
Introduction

I n this book, we will get to know the various biblical exegetes (com-
mentators, or parshanim; singular, parshan). We will examine the unique
style of each parshan individually: his particular methodology and the
influence of his life experiences on the nature of his commentary. At the
same time, we will discuss at length the contribution of each exegete
to biblical exegesis (parshanut) in general. Of course, the scope of the
present work will not enable discussing all or even most of the biblical
exegetes; rather, we will focus on those commentators I view as having
had the most significant impact on the world of biblical commentary.
Before we begin our analysis, we must address the question of
when and why the need for biblical interpretation developed. It is rea-
sonable to assume that the generation that received the Torah was able
to understand its instructions and the nuances of its expressions, and
that the tradition handed down to immediately subsequent generations
was initially very close to the understanding of that first generation.
However, as the chronological distance from Sinai grew and the
receiving of the Torah receded into the past, the understanding of the
text diminished. We may demonstrate this with the verse describing the
manna: “And the house of Israel called the name thereof manna; and
it was like white gad seed; and the taste of it was like wafers in honey”
(Ex. 16:31). Presumably, the verse was intelligible to the generation that

xvii
Great Biblical Commentators

received the Torah, but it is quite difficult to understand today: What

exactly does a white gad seed (often translated as coriander) actually
look like? And what is the taste of “wafers in honey”?
We may compare this to the way Shakespeare’s plays were under-
standable to his audience, but our generation struggles to comprehend
their language, as well as the playwright’s imagery and associations.
Moreover, it is not only the hard words and difficult phrases of the Torah
that require interpretation; the syntax of a verse or the structure of a
chapter may also prove challenging. The text may have been clearer at the
time of its writing, or it may have relied for clarity on the contributions
of the Masoretic authorities. In the absence of these elements, however,
the need arises to offer a plausible interpretation to explicate the text.
The main role of the parshan, then, is to bridge the gap between
the ancient text and the contemporary reader. However, many Jewish
biblical commentators saw their duty as not limited to the role of bridg-
ing the gap. Since the Torah carries the word of God to His people, par-
shanut also seeks to fulfill the spiritual role of answering theological and
existential questions that arise from the text, or essential questions that
arise from the reality of the commentator’s time, as he seeks answers
to his questions and those of his generation in the Torah. These are all
motivations of parshanut. In this work, we will discuss these goals of the
commentators and their responses to contemporary influences.
Ĥazal teach us that “we begin by honoring the hosts.” I was for-
tunate that the original host of the chapters of this book was the Israel
Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash of Yeshivat Har Etzion. The writing was
done in full collaboration with the staff of the Virtual Beit Midrash, who
are engaged in the sacred work of making the Torah accessible to many.
May your work be blessed by Heaven. In this context, it is my pleasure to
personally thank the dedicated Virtual Beit Midrash editor, Eyal Kesner,
who, in addition to thoroughly and professionally editing the shiurim,
also contributed to their content with his insightful comments and
extensive knowledge. May God reward you for your exceptional work.1

1. Avigail z”l wrote a note to express here her gratitude to Maggid Books and the
editors who would work on the book. I do so above, in the preface [YR].

xviii
 Introduction

Among my earliest childhood memories is attending Friday

night services at Machon Gold in Jerusalem, where my mother taught,
when I was about eight years old. The regular sermon was given
by Nechama Leibowitz z”l, who would later become my teacher;
‫חבל על דאבדין ולא משתכחין‬. There, between Kabbalat Shabbat and Arvit,
the seeds of interest in studying Tanakh in general and parshanut in par-
ticular were planted in me.
This interest was cultivated by my mother and teacher, Chana
Poupko, through the personal example of a Torah scholar who toiled
in its study literally day and night, and through her constant encourage-
ment ever since, together with that of my father, Rav Moshe Poupko.
I would like to express my gratitude to my brother Avraham
Poupko, who was a faithful interlocutor as I composed these lessons. My
conversations with him helped me polish and refine my work.
I cannot express in words my deep gratitude to my dear husband
Yehuda, who always stands by my side, for his endless support and devo-
tion. The final product of this book has been significantly influenced by
many discussions I had with him on exegetical issues, and by his valuable
and helpful comments. He also wrote one of the chapters of the book,
about his teacher, Rav Mordechai Breuer. What is mine and yours is his.
And above all, I wish to offer praise and gratitude to the Creator
of the World, Who bestows His goodness with compassion upon me
and upon my family.
Let Your mercies come to me, that I may live;
For Your law is my delight. (Ps. 119:77)

xix
Chapter 1

Biblical Translations
and Targum Onkelos

I have chosen to open this study with Onkelos and his targum
(translation) of the Torah. We will begin with a few brief words about
the general nature of biblical translation.

TRANSLATION AS AN EXEGETICAL TOOL

Translation is inherently commentary. When a given word has a
number of possible meanings, and the translator chooses a specific
term from among many options, he is definitively explaining the word
and excluding all other options. Let us take, for example, Genesis 4:7,
which is a difficult verse. God is speaking to Cain, who is upset that his
offering has been rejected while his brother Abel’s has been accepted.
God says to him: “If you improve se’et and if you do not improve sin
crouches at the door.”
It is not clear what the term se’et means. Onkelos (and following
him, Rashi) translates the term as “you will be let alone” – that is, you

1
Great Biblical Commentators

will be forgiven.1 Accordingly, he determines that one should under-

stand and punctuate the verse in this way: “If you improve your actions,
you will be forgiven. But if you do not improve, sin crouches at the
door.” Malbim, however, explains the term se’et as related to the term
maset – a “gift” or “tribute”;2 God is thus saying to Cain that whether
he improves (i.e., increases) his offering or does not improve it, it will
not matter; the result will be the same – that “sin crouches at the door.”
The implication, according to this interpretation, is that acts are what
are significant, rather than offerings.3 The translation of the word se’et,
then, determines not just the meaning of this one word, but also the
syntactic structure of the verse as a whole.
No translation is perfect. No translator can ever render the text
in an exact manner. Very often, the process of translation causes the text
to lose the beauty of the original text; when we speak of the Torah’s lan-
guage in particular, we may even say that it loses some holiness as well.
At the end of the day, any translation takes away from the Torah’s inher-
ent value as “the words of the living God” ( Jer. 23:36).
The problematic nature of translation comes to the fore in a num-
ber of ways. One of them is wordplay. Consider, for example, Genesis
2:23: “This shall be called woman (isha), because this was taken from
man (ish).” Onkelos renders: “This shall be called itteta, for this was
taken from her husband (baalah).” The verse in the Torah teaches that
the etymological root of “isha” is “ish,” but this concept is utterly lost in
the Aramaic translation.4

1. Cf. Genesis 50:17, where sa refers to bearing or pardoning a sin.

2. Cf. Genesis 43:34. Medieval exegetes offered many and sundry explanations of the
term se’et (see Ibn Ezra, Ramban, Sforno); I have chosen to present Malbim’s expla-
nation, as it influences the syntactic structure of the verse.
3. In Malbim’s words: “God revealed to him that He does not desire offerings; rather,
‘Behold, obeying is better than an offering’ (I Sam. 15:22). The important thing is
that you improve your actions, not improving the maset, the offering. Improving
the maset will not be desirable in His eyes. [God is saying to Cain:] Whether you
improve the maset or not, it is not desirable in My eyes, as it has no value.”
4. It may be that Onkelos is formulating an alternative etymology, using the wordplay
of itteta and the term nesiva, “taken,” which is synonymous with the word aitei,
“brought” (used in the previous verse). Indeed, a bride is “brought” or “taken” from
her father’s house to her husband’s house.

2
 Biblical Translations and Targum Onkelos

An additional area in which translation creates difficulties is

concerning words that express more than one meaning. The moment a
translator picks a given definition, the reader loses every other potential
meaning of the word. An example of this can be found in Genesis 2:25:
“And they were both arummim, the man and his wife…” Immediately
afterward, the next verse (3:1) states: “And the serpent was arum.” Of
course, arum means different things in the two verses: it means “naked”
in the first verse, while in the latter it means “clever” or “subtle.” However,
the Torah clearly desires to link the two. As these two terms are unre-
lated in Aramaic, the translation forfeits the eloquence of the Torah.
The inevitable conclusion is that no translation can possibly
maintain the full multiplicity of meanings of the original; the translator
is compelled to pick one meaning only – generally, one of the simpler
ones – and to abandon the rest. Consequently, the translation must nec-
essarily turn the Torah into a shallower, more superficial book, without
the unique depth and variegated layers hidden within the original text.
This approach is expressed by the Sages in the Talmud: “R. Yehuda says:
‘Whoever translates a verse literally is a fabricator, and whoever adds to
it is a blasphemer and an execrator’” (Kiddushin 49a).
A precisely literal translation of the text cannot encompass the
conceptual truth of scripture, and is likely to lose its message. Conversely,
a rendering of the message without the literal translation may succeed
in transmitting the idea hidden in the verses, but it ignores the fact that
this is a sacred text in which every word carries meaning. This, appar-
ently, is the explanation of a statement in Megillat Taanit (Addendum):

And these are the days on which we fast… On the 8th of Tevet,
the Torah was written in Greek in the days of King Ptolemy, and
the darkness came to the world for three days.5

WHEN WAS THE TORAH FIRST TRANSLATED?

Despite the Sages’ negative view of the translation of the Torah, as seen
in the above source, at some point in history they realized its contem-
porary exigency. When did the need for biblical translation arise?

5. This formulation of the Sages may present the inverse of the three days of preparation
before the Torah was given at Sinai (Ex. 19:10–16).

3
Great Biblical Commentators

Aside from the problem of comprehension mentioned ­earlier – the

chasm of time that may make it difficult to understand Tanakh – at the
beginning of the period of the Second Temple an additional impediment
to understanding the Torah came into being: a basic lack of ­familiarity
with biblical Hebrew. From the time of the Babylonian exile and onward,
the Aramaic language progressively spread among the Jews as well as
among the other peoples of the Middle East. Gradually, the use of Hebrew
decreased, until Aramaic became the dominant language in the region.
This process necessitated a rendering of the Torah into the spoken tongue,
because without such a translation the people had no access to the Tanakh.
Only scholars who still knew Hebrew had such access.
According to the Sages, the first translations of the Torah occurred
during the Return to Zion in the beginning of the Second Temple era
(fifth century BCE). Nehemiah 8:8 describes Ezra’s public Torah read-
ing in the following way: “They read from the scroll, from the Torah of
God, clearly, and they gave the meaning, so that the people understood
the reading.” This is what the Sages say about this verse:

Rav said: What does it mean: “They read from the scroll, from
the Torah of God, clearly, and they gave the meaning, so that the
people understood the reading”? “They read from the book, from
the Torah of God” – this is Scripture; “clearly” – this is transla-
tion. (Megilla 3a)

The Rambam writes:

From the days of Ezra, the custom was to have a translator trans-
late for the people whatever the reader would read in the Torah,
so that they might understand the content of the words. (Hilkhot
Tefilla 12:2)

Therefore, we may point to the period of Ezra as the first step in the
development of biblical exegesis.
It may be that the primordial translation described in the book
of Nehemiah was not a systematic rendition of the Torah in its entirety,
but rather a partial translation as needed of difficult expressions. Later,

4
 Biblical Translations and Targum Onkelos

apparently in the era of the Mishna, translations of Tanakh became an

accepted phenomenon throughout Jewish communities. The Mishna
attests to this by enumerating the guidelines of simultaneous translation
of the public Torah reading: “One who reads the Torah…he should not
read for the translator more than one verse; but in the Prophets, three”
(Mishna Megilla 4:4).
These laws testify not only to the translator’s official position,
but also to the supervision and restrictions the Sages saw fit to impose
on translation. For example, the same Mishna subsequently lists verses
that should not be publicly translated:
“The story of Reuven is read but not translated. The story of
Tamar is read and translated. The first calf story is read and translated,
the second is read but not translated. The Priests’ blessing, the story of
David and Amnon are neither read nor translated” (ibid., 10).
In light of the Sages’ hesitations regarding biblical translation, they
saw fit to choose one rendition and grant it primacy, with the goal of pre-
venting an anarchy of do-it-yourself translations. From among the Aramaic
translations of Scripture,6 the one that most accorded with the Sages’ view-
point – both because of its faithfulness to the text as far as possible and the
fact that it did not contain too many independent addenda – was Targum
Onkelos. (This choice was as opposed to another famous targum, com-
monly attributed to Yonatan ben Uzziel and known as Pseudo-Jonathan,
which weaves midrashic elements into almost every verse, as we will see
below.) These qualities made Onkelos’s translation “the Targum,” grant-
ing it the distinguished position of the official translation of the Torah.7
But who was Onkelos?

THE IDENTITY OF ONKELOS AND THE TIME

OF THE TARGUM’S COMPOSITION
We have no exact information concerning the identity of Onkelos
and the time of the composition of his targum, and there are different

6. The limitations of this series do not allow me to analyze the Greek translations of
Scripture, but their place of honor remains unquestioned.
7. See, for example, the following ruling of Rambam, Hilkhot Ishut 8:4: “If one says to
a woman, ‘You are betrothed to me with this on the condition that I am literate,’ he
must read the Torah and translate it with Targum Onkelos.”

5
Great Biblical Commentators

views concerning the matter. Onkelos is mentioned in Tractate

Megilla: “R. Yirmeya said, and some say [it was] R. Ĥiyya bar Abba
[who said]: The translation of the Torah was composed by Onkelos
the convert based on [the teachings] of R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua”
(Megilla 3a).
However, this declaration is far from self-evident, and it is diffi-
cult to conclude based on this that Onkelos lived in the period of the
Mishna (as I will shortly explain). It may be that the intent of the aggadic
statement that Onkelos was a student of R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua is
to state that Onkelos received his interpretation from the oral tradition,
giving his targum the seal of approval.
Dr. Israel Drazin, an Onkelos scholar, claims that we should date
Targum Onkelos around the year 400 CE.8 He offers two main proofs
for this:

1. Onkelos is not mentioned in sources compiled before this time,

such as the Talmud Yerushalmi and tannaitic midrashim (such as
the Mekhilta of Rabbi Yishmael, the Mekhilta of Rabbi Shimon
bar Yoĥai, the Sifra, and the Sifrei).
2. Onkelos commonly quotes the abovementioned tannaitic
midrashim, which were compiled about the year 400 CE.
Furthermore, he consistently uses the version of the later editions
of the Sages’ midrashim.

On the other hand, we should not date the life of Onkelos much later
than this, since he is mentioned in the Talmud Bavli (e.g., Megilla 3a,
Avoda Zara 11a, Gittin 56b).9

8. Israel Drazin, “Dating Targum Onkelos by Means of the Tannaitic Midrashim,”

Journal of Jewish Studies 50, no. 2 (1999): 246–58.
9. Many miraculous tales are attributed to Onkelos, the most famous being the
passage in Tractate Avoda Zara in which the Roman emperor sends three Roman
legions, one after another, in order to convince Onkelos to recant his conversion.
Onkelos manages to convince them all of the veracity of the Torah, and it is they
who convert – to Judaism. (The emperor Titus is identified as Onkelos’s uncle in
the passage in Gittin.)

6
 Biblical Translations and Targum Onkelos

THE CHARACTERISTICS OF TARGUM ONKELOS

What characterizes Targum Onkelos, and what is so distinctive about
his style that it earned him such distinguished standing?
We will enumerate a number of characteristics:

1. Targum Onkelos is a terse, literal translation that aims to explain

the verses simply, and it does not add midrashic details. This is
opposed to the Targum Yerushalmi, among others. For example,
the words “And the woman saw that the tree was good for food”
(Gen. 3:6), Onkelos translates simply: “And the woman saw that
the tree was good to eat,” while the Targum Yerushalmi renders
it “And the woman perceived Samael, the Angel of Death.”
2. Targum Onkelos avoids the anthropomorphization of God. Out
of respect for the Divine, Onkelos avoids attributing human
acts or ascribing human feelings to God. Here are a number
of examples of this. Consider Genesis 7:16 – after Noah enters
the Ark, the verse reports, “And God closed for him.” Onkelos
translates this, “And God protected him with His word,” stress-
ing that God protects Noah with His utterance. Onkelos uses
this language in order to refute the possible interpretation
that God closes the door of the Ark with His hand. In another
example from Parashat Noaĥ (Gen. 8:21), we find, “And God
smelled the pleasant smell, and God said in his heart…” In this
verse, there are two expressions that express physicality: God
smells an odor, and God says in His heart. Onkelos translates
the expression “And God smelled” as “And God accepted with
goodwill”; “God said in his heart” is translated “And God said
in His utterance.”
3. When the Torah uses a metaphor, Onkelos is exacting in
explaining the significance of the metaphor and not translating
it literally, as this would be a ludicrous rendering of the Torah.
For example, the words “And the Israelites were coming out with
a high hand” (Ex. 14:8), Onkelos translates, “And the Israelites
were coming out with a bare head” – that is, the nation leaves
openly – ­replacing the biblical metaphor with an Aramaic one.

7
Great Biblical Commentators

4. In translating verses of biblical poetry, Onkelos breaks away from

his customary approach; he does not explain the verses according
to their simple meaning but rather according to their prophetic
content. For example, Jacob’s blessing of Judah: Velasoreka beni
atono, “And to the choice vine, his she-donkey’s child” (Gen.
49:11): Onkelos renders, “The nation will build His sanctuary.”
The “choice vine” is seen as the Jewish people, since they are often
compared in Tanakh to a grapevine;10 he reinterprets the word
beni as related not to ben, “son,” but beneh, “build”; and the word
atono is translated as “His sanctuary,” based on the Temple’s shaar
ha’iton, “the entrance gate.”11
5. The Targum attempts to prevent errors that may lead to the des-
ecration of God’s name. Sometimes, the Torah uses an identical
word for something sacred and something profane. Thus, for
example, the term mizbe’aĥ is used equally for an altar dedicated
to God and one designated for pagan worship. Onkelos translates
these words differently. He translates a reference to an altar for
God as madbeĥa, cognate to mizbe’aĥ – for example, Genesis 8:20
reports, “And Noah built an altar for God,” which he translates,
“And Noah built a madbeĥa before God.” On the other hand, the
term he uses for pagan altars is agora – for example, Exodus 34:13
commands, “For you must demolish their altars,” and Onkelos
here applies the pagan agora. Even the word elohim is ambiguous;
in Tanakh, this is sometimes a sacred name and sometimes a term
for pagan deities. In the latter case, Onkelos uses the term daĥala,
fear – that is, inherently powerless objects that are invested with
powers by those who worship them. This is how he renders, for
example, Exodus 20:19: “Do not make for yourselves silver gods
or golden gods” – “daĥalan of silver or daĥalan of gold.”
6. The Targum strives to maintain the honor of the leaders of
the Jewish nation, often concealing defects in the patriarchs’
behavior. When the Torah describes an act by using a term with

10. For example, Jeremiah 2:21.

11. See Ezekiel 40:15.

8
 Biblical Translations and Targum Onkelos

an clearly negative connotation, Onkelos transmutes the negative

word to a neutral word. For example, in the story of the theft of
the blessings by Jacob, Isaac says to Esau, “Your brother came
with guile and took your blessing” (Gen. 27:35). Onkelos renders
this, “Your brother came with cleverness and received your
blessing.” Thus, Onkelos changes two things: Jacob is described
as “clever” rather than “guileful,” and instead of “taking” the
blessing, he merely “receives” it. Consequently, a reader of the
Targum perceives that Jacob is not a thief, but rather a clever
man; furthermore, Jacob receives the blessings from Isaac, rather
than taking them. Similarly, the Torah unequivocally states that
“Rachel stole her father’s terafim” (Gen. 31:19), but Onkelos
softens this and translates it as “Rachel took the images.”
7. The rendition of the Targum follows the halakha. Sometimes,
Onkelos translates the verse according to the tradition of the
Oral Torah rather than according to the simple meaning of
the verse. For example, Genesis 9:6 states, “One who spills
the blood of a person, by a person shall his blood be spilled,”
establishing the death penalty for homicide. Onkelos translates
this verse in the following way: “One who spills the blood of
a person, by witnesses upon the utterance of judges his blood
shall be spilled.” In other words, the death penalty requires
eyewitness testimony and a judicial verdict. Another example
is the rendering of the famous phrase, “Do not cook a kid in
its mother’s milk” (Ex. 23:19), which Onkelos transforms into
“Do not eat meat in milk.”

THE IMPORTANCE OF TARGUM ONKELOS

There is no doubt that Targum Onkelos succeeded, for over a millennium
and a half, in maintaining its honored place among the Jewish people as
the authoritative and sanctified translation of the Torah. In every publi-
cation of the Torah with commentaries, Targum Onkelos maintains its
place of honor, and throughout the Jewish world, the weekly study of
the Targum is a halakhic obligation of “twice Scripture, once Targum”
(Berakhot 8a; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayim 285).

9
Great Biblical Commentators

As we have shown, the words of the Targum were chosen by

Onkelos with exactness and precision, and with pedagogical and theo-
logical goals; therefore, one who reads Targum Onkelos must delve into
it in order to understand it thoroughly. For this purpose, the works of a
large number of commentators and researchers, old and new, are avail-
able to use in the study process.
May we all merit the blessing of the Talmud:

R. Huna bar Yehuda says in the name of R. Ammi: A person

should always complete his portions together with the congre-
gation, twice Scripture and once Targum… For if one completes
his portions together with the congregation, his days and years
are prolonged. (Berakhot 8a–b)

10
Chapter 2

Saadia Gaon

BIOGRAPHY
Rabbeinu Saadia Gaon1 ben Yosef (882–942) – known by the acro-
nym “Rasag” – is considered one of the greatest Jewish thinkers of the
early medieval period. Rasag was well versed in many disciplines: bibli-
cal exegesis, Jewish philosophy, Hebrew language, prayer, and halakha.
He was born in Egypt,2 but was active mainly in Babylonia, where he
served as the rosh yeshiva of the talmudic academy in Sura (near Al-Hira
in modern-day Iraq). Rasag was the first Jewish scholar to compose a
systematic Jewish philosophy, and he was the first Jew to write a compre-
hensive commentary on the Torah. These compositions were designed
to address the challenges of the time, and they served as Rasag’s weap-
ons of war against phenomena that threatened to tear apart the Jewish
community, as we will shortly see.
During the course of his life, Rasag passed through all of the
Jewish centers of Torah and Arab centers of education that existed at
the time. In Egypt, he married and had a number of children, two of

1. “Gaon” was the title used for heads of yeshivot in Sura, Pumbedita, and Eretz Yisrael
from the seventh to the eleventh centuries, probably based on Psalms 47:5. Hence
the period was called “the time of the Geonim.”
2. In the area of Faiyum in Upper Egypt – hence his Arabic name, Sa’id al-Fayyumi.

11
Great Biblical Commentators

whom are known by name: She’erit and R. Dosa Gaon. It was in Egypt
that Rasag started his professional life as well, writing the Agron, the
first Hebrew-Arabic dictionary. At the age of about thirty, he moved to
Israel, apparently to Tiberias, where he lived until 921, after which he
moved to Babylonia.
Upon his arrival there, he joined the yeshiva of Pumbedita and
led the yeshiva for eight years under the title “Alluf.” In the year 928, the
Exilarch David ben Zakkai invited Rasag to become the rosh yeshiva of
Sura, and Rasag accepted this invitation. Throughout all his years of
service in the yeshivot of Babylonia, Rasag never stopped writing; he
composed halakhic works and responsa to questions he received from
across the Jewish Diaspora.
In 930, a sharp dispute broke out between the Exilarch and Rasag,
compelling the latter to flee to Baghdad. During the years of his “exile”
from Sura, Rasag wrote his important books on the subject of philoso-
phy, including his magnum opus, Emunot VeDe’ot. In 937, in the wake of
his reconciliation with the Exilarch, Rasag returned to his position as
rosh yeshiva of Sura, where he remained until his death in 942.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
In order to understand the background and importance of Rasag’s writ-
ings generally, and of his commentary to the Torah in particular, we
must examine the cultural background of Rasag. We can point to two
historical developments that influenced Rasag’s creative endeavors, one
internal and the other external.
The external development was the rise of Islam. As a result of
the success of the Muslim conquests of the seventh century, many Jews
around the world found themselves under Muslim rule and surrounded
by Muslim culture. One of aims of the Muslim faith was to strengthen
Islam in the world by conversion of those living under its rule. Sometimes
this was enforced, but mostly it was accomplished by giving greater rights
to those who converted to Islam. The effect of the Jewish community’s
exposure to Muslim religion and culture was ambiguous. On the one
hand, Muslim civilization enriched the cultural world of the Jews; on
the other hand, there was the danger that this exposure might seduce
some to abandon Judaism for Islam.

12
 Saadia Gaon

In parallel, perhaps because of these phenomena, an additional

development occurred within the Jewish community. In the second half
of the eighth century, about a century prior to the period of Rasag, a sect
developed inspired by the actions of Anan ben David; it claimed that,
essentially, Judaism should be based only on Tanakh, without relying
on any outside information at all.3 The command of Anan, founder of
the sect (in fact, members of the sect were identified as Ananites), was:
“Investigate thoroughly the Torah, and do not rely on my words.” Anan
regarded the mesora as an invention of humans, and therefore not bind-
ing; only that which is written in the Torah is obligatory. Two centuries
later, this position solidified into that of the well-known Karaite sect.
Practically, the main point of contention was the relationship between
biblical law and the tradition of the Oral Torah, both in principle and
regarding specific laws. Of course, the Geonim preceding Rasag also cat-
egorically opposed this phenomenon, but they did not feel threatened by
it – perhaps because in the geonic period preceding Rasag, the Karaite
sect had not yet solidified. However, in the time of Rasag, the sect had
already begun to become more active and to influence many Jews.
It is the struggle against these two phenomena – Islam and the
Karaites – that constitutes the foundation of Rasag’s commentaries on
the Torah.

3. The background for this challenge to rabbinic authority was based, apparently, on
the fact that the founder of the sect, Anan ben David, did not receive the position
of Exilarch. Anan was a striking personality, and his charisma and intelligence,
combined with his compelling methodology, led Jews who were opposed to the
Babylonian leadership to coalesce around him. R. Abraham ibn Daud, who lived in
twelfth-century Spain and composed Sefer HaKabbala, describes the factors for the
development of Karaism in this way:
And in [R. Yehudai Gaon’s] days, there arose Anan and Shaul his son, may the
name of the wicked rot. This Anan was from the Davidic dynasty, and was a
Torah scholar at the start, but they identified that he was flawed. Because of
this, he was not appointed as Gaon, and he received no help from heaven to
become the Exilarch. Because of the jealousy and pettiness in his heart, he col-
lected a following and began to seduce and lead Israel away from the tradition
of the Sages, and he became a Rebellious Elder… He fabricated out of whole
cloth unsound laws and rules by which no man should live. For after the de-
struction of the Temple, the sectarians had petered out, until Anan came and
strengthened them.

13
Great Biblical Commentators

RASAG’S COMMENTARIES ON THE TORAH

Rasag’s commentary on the Torah is divided into two parts:

1. Peirush HaKatzar (The Short Commentary): A translation

of Tanakh into Arabic (tafsir: the Arabic term for scriptural
exegesis),4 including some brief explanations beyond the literal
translation – for popular use ( Jews and non-Jews).
2. Peirush HaArokh (The Long Commentary): Also written in Arabic,
but meant for educated readers. Includes discussion of various
topics in the disciplines of linguistics, halakha, and philosophy.

We will first discuss Peirush HaKatzar.

Characteristics of Peirush HaKatzar

As to most of his works, Rasag composed an introduction to his Peirush
HaKatzar. In the introduction, he describes the impetus for writing the
commentary:

I composed this work only following the personal request of

one of the students, who requested that I dedicate a book to the
simple meaning of the Torah without including any linguistics,
metaphors, synonymy, or antonymy. I should cite neither the
questions of the heretics nor my responses to them. I should not
explore ramifications of the rational commandments, nor the per-
formance of the revelatory commandments. Rather, I should only
translate the simple meaning of the verses of the Torah.
I realized that what he asked me has great value: that
readers should understand the content of the Torah – narratives,
commandments, and the rewards and punishment – in sequence
and concisely…
And if subsequently, a reader should want to under-
stand in depth each and every rational commandment and the

4. Rasag wrote a translation of the entire Tanakh, but here I will address only his com-
mentary on the Torah.

14
 Saadia Gaon

performance of the revelatory ones, as well as how to refute the

claims of the challengers of the sections of the Torah, he can find
all of that in my other book. This brief one may inspire him to
this end and lead him to his object.
Realizing all this, I have written this book as only a trans-
lation of the simple meaning of the text of the Torah, precise
according to reason and tradition.

So, according to his own words in this introduction, Rasag’s main aim
was to translate the Torah into spoken Arabic, in order to make it acces-
sible to everyone. Rasag stresses that Peirush HaKatzar does not deal
with the philosophical questions that arise from the Torah, nor does
it provide a comprehensive explanation of the mitzvot of the Torah;
rather, it is a literal translation. The student interested in deepening
his understanding of the Torah is directed to Peirush HaArokh: “This
brief one may inspire him to this end and lead him to his object.” After
the student understands the simple meaning (peshat) of the verses
in the short Torah commentary, the student may proceed to study
Peirush HaArokh.
Still, we must ask – does Rasag really “only translate the simple
meaning of the verses of the Torah”? Analysis of this commentary shows
that he often goes beyond the narrow translation of the text’s peshat.
First, he adds concise explanations. Since his target audience included
non-Jews as well, who knew little or no Hebrew, Rasag wanted to make
the books of Tanakh accessible by means of a biblical translation and
commentary.5 In addition, with his translation Rasag hoped to bolster

5. See Y. Blau, “Al Targum HaTorah shel Rav Saadia Gaon,” in M. Bar-Asher, ed., Sefer
HaYovel LeRav Mordechai Breuer ( Jerusalem, 1992), 634:
There is no doubt that Rasag’s translation was directed toward Jews who did not
understand Scripture in its Hebrew original. This may be clearly proven from
his commentary (which includes his translation), because the very content
of the commentary gives testimony as valid as a hundred witnesses that it is
directed toward the Jews alone; a non-Jew could never hope to understand the
halakhic debates in it. The question is: Was the translation (as distinct from the
commentary) also directed only to Jews, or perhaps it was also for non-Jews?
This is the testimony of Ibn Ezra in a famous passage from his commentary on
Genesis (2:11): “Perhaps he did this” – i.e., translating the names of “the families

15
Great Biblical Commentators

the Jewish faith, to bridge differences of opinion, and to dispel errant

and misleading beliefs, including that of the Karaites. The language of the
translation is clear, logical, and understandable by the Arabic-speaking
target audience,6 even at the expense of literal precision in translating
the Torah’s text.
Additionally, Rasag intended for text to be understood in an
unequivocal way, without the ambiguity of the source language, appar-
ently in light of his debates with the Karaites. So, too, Rasag goes beyond
the literal translation in order to convey various messages and to prevent
possible philosophical and theological errors.7

and the countries and the animals and the birds and the rocks” into Arabic –
“for God’s honor, because he translated it into the Ishmaelite tongue and into
their script, so that they should not say that there are words in the Torah that
we do not comprehend.”
6. Rasag’s method of translating scripture is very similar to Rambam’s definition of
proper translation. Rambam, in his letter to Rabbi Shmuel ibn Tibbon, concerning
the translation of Moreh HaNevukhim, writes (Iggerot HaRambam, Y. Shilat Edition
[Maaleh Adumim, 1988], vol. 2, 532):
And I will explain to you everything after mentioning one principle, namely:
whoever wants to translate from one language to another and intends to
exchange a single word for a single word and keep the order of the syntax
and the content – he will toil greatly, and his translation will be very dubious
and distorted…and it is not fitting to do so. Rather, the translator from one
language to another must first understand the content, and then relate it so
that the meaning will be understood in the other language. This is impossible
without changing order, and translating one word with multiple words, and
multiple words with a single one, and omitting words and adding words, so
that the meaning is arranged and understood according to the target language.
7. In the Kapakh edition of Rasag’s commentaries, published by Mosad HaRav Kook
(as an independent volume, as well as in Mosad HaRav Kook’s Torat Ĥayim edi-
tion of the Ĥumash), R. Kapakh renders the translation of Rasag into Hebrew only
in the following cases: (1) the word, expression, or verse is not unequivocal and
Rasag chooses one of a kaleidoscope of possibilities; (2) Rasag goes beyond the
simple literal translation; and (3) the translation constitutes specific commentary.
R. Kapakh, in his great modesty, expresses the reason for this in his preface (p. 8)
to the collection of Rasag’s commentaries on the Torah:
My first work in this collection was to gather from our master’s translation all
of the words, expressions, and alterations that imply some commentary and
to turn them into Hebrew. This selection required of me great care from two
perspectives: one, that I should not translate the translation, making this just a

16
 Saadia Gaon

More specifically, Peirush HaKatzar has a number of character-

istics (examples from Genesis):

1. Avoiding anthropomorphization: Rasag avoids translating and

literally explaining verses that attribute physical characteristics
to God.8 For example, in 17:22, the verse states, “And God went
up,” and Rasag renders, “And the glory of God went up.”
2. Exegetical clarifications: For example, the Torah explains Eve’s
name (Ĥava) by saying (3:20), “For she was the mother of all
who live,” and Rasag translates, “of all who live and speak,” since
Eve was not the mother of the animals.9
3. Identification of places, nations, objects, and animals: Rasag often
identifies different nations mentioned in Tanakh, as well as loca-
tions, various flora and fauna, etc. For example, Rasag identifies
the sites mentioned in the first eight verses of chapter 14 as places
known in his era. Similarly, Rasag uses the names of precious
stones known in his time to identify the stones of the breastplate.10
4. Theological and philosophical clarifications: For example, Malki-
Tzedek declares (14:15), “Blessed be Abram to High God,” and

superfluous act, and onerous for the reader. After all, this is Scripture, and what
value is there in turning the Hebrew words of the living God, and the style given
to Moses at Sinai – into my inferior Hebrew?
8. In this, Rasag follows in the footsteps of Onkelos. In his book Emunot VeDe’ot, Rasag
dedicates a chapter to the question of anthropomorphization of God in Tanakh (I:9).
Among other things, he writes:
It is a tradition handed down by the great scholars of our nation, who are trust-
worthy in matters of faith, that in any place in which they discover something
that gives rise to doubts, they do not translate it in the language of physicality.
Rather, they transform it into that which is fitting.
9. Rasag brings this example in his introduction: “If we leave the expression ‘all who
live’ with its simple, widely understood meaning, we deny reality. This would imply
that the lion, ox, donkey, and other animals are descended from Eve.”
10. Regarding Rasag’s identification of the four rivers coming out of the Garden of Eden,
Ibn Ezra (Gen. 2:11) comments caustically: “There is no proof that the Pishon is the
Nile…as he has no tradition… Perhaps he saw them in a dream? And he has erred
in some of them, as I will explain in the proper places; consequently, we will not
rely on his dreams.”

17
Great Biblical Commentators

Rasag translates, “to the High God,” to eliminate the possibility

that Abraham’s God is merely the chief of a pantheon.
5. Alterations to prevent the desecration of God’s name: For example,
the Torah reports (12:17), “And God plagued Pharaoh and his
household with great plagues on account of Sarai, Abram’s wife,”
but Rasag renders this, “And God informed Pharaoh that he would
bring on him and his house great plagues on Sarai’s account.” This
is in order to avoid the claim that God punishes Pharaoh even
though Pharaoh does not yet know that Sarai is a married woman.

Characteristics of Peirush HaArokh

Unfortunately, we have no complete manuscript of Peirush HaArokh of
Rasag, only parts of the book of Genesis and parts of the book of Exodus.
Ĥaval al de’avdin, this is a true loss. In any case, in his introduction to
Peirush HaArokh, Rasag explains the methodology of his commentary
to his readers:11

It is fitting for every thinking person to always understand the Torah

according to the simple meaning of the words, as common and
most useful among those who speak his language…unless sense
or reason contradicts it, or if the simple meaning of the expres-
sion contradicts a different, clear verse or the prophetic tradition.

Accordingly, Rasag’s modus operandi is to explain the verses according

to their simple meaning, unless:

• Sensory perception of the world refutes the peshat.

• Reason refutes the peshat.
• Verses contradict each other.
• The Sages’ tradition refutes the peshat.

I will bring an example only for the last of these four items: rejecting the
peshat when it contradicts the Sages’ tradition. As we have said above, the
purpose of Rasag’s commentary is, among other things, to strengthen

11. These rules are applicable also to Peirush HaKatzar.

18
 Saadia Gaon

the oral tradition in opposition to the Karaite position. Therefore, in a

considerable number of halakhic passages, Rasag ignores the peshat of
the verses. Instead, he explains the verse according to the mesora, and
he uses peshat and reason to substantiate the Sages’ law.
An example of this can be found in Exodus (21:24–25):12 “An eye
for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot. A burn
for a burn, an injury for an injury, a bruise for a bruise.”
Rasag describes a debate with Ben Zuta13 concerning the ques-
tion of whether the verse means that the assailant should actually lose
a limb, or merely to provide monetary compensation:

R. Saadia said: We cannot explain the verse literally. For if a man

struck the eye of his fellow, reducing the latter’s vision by one-
third, how can it be that he will be struck to just such a degree,
no more and no less? Perhaps he will be rendered totally blind!
The burn, injury, and bruise are even more difficult: if they are
in a critical place, [the assailant] may die, and this is ludicrous.
Ben Zuta said to him: But is it not written in another
place (Lev. 24:20): “As one causes a wound to a person, so shall
be done to him”?
The Gaon answered him: The term “to” sometimes mean
“upon.”14 It means to say: so must a punishment be put upon him.

Ben Zuta responded to him [with the verse]: “As he has done, so shall
be done to him” (ibid. 24:19).

The Gaon responded: Did not Samson say [of the Philistines]
( Judges 15:11), “As they have done to me, so have I done to them”?
Now, Samson did not take their wives and give them to others

12. As mentioned, we do not have all of the commentaries of Rasag, but Ibn Ezra quotes
him often. The commentary of Rasag on this verse is taken from Ibn Ezra’s long
commentary to Exodus 21:24.
13. Ben Zuta was a Karaite sage who debated Rasag about the meaning of a number of
verses.
14. In other words, in biblical Hebrew, the term “in” is ambiguous; thus, the meaning
of the verse is “so shall [a monetary punishment] be imposed upon him” and not to
cause a wound or defect in the body of the assailant.

19
Great Biblical Commentators

[which the Philistines had done with Samson’s wife]; he simply

meant that he had dealt them a deserved punishment.
Ben Zuta responded: If the assailant is indigent, what shall
his punishment be?
The Gaon responded: And if a blind man puts out the eye
of a seeing man, what shall be done to him? On the contrary, it is
conceivable that the poor man may become wealthy one day and
pay, but the blind man will never be able to “pay”!
Another example of Rasag’s deep involvement in the battle
with the Karaites is his commentary on Exodus 34:18, concern-
ing the Karaite custom of creating a leap year (that is, a thirteen-
month year) in order to ensure that Passover falls in “the month
of the fresh ears” – that is, when the barley ripens: “Whoever
defies our ancestors’ tradition, along with their practical customs
as witnessed by all, and instead presumes to reach an opinion by
thinking alone…I will find fifteen responses to him.”

Rasag speaks at length about this point, giving a special mention to

Anan, “may his memory be cursed.”
In his arguments against the Karaites to substantiate the
Sages’ traditions, Rasag cites only verses from Tanakh and logical
argument, not assuming the Sages’ traditions, which the Karaites
did not accept.15

15. In his famous poem “Esa Meshali,” Rasag mocks the Karaites and proves that the
Oral Torah is the essential basis for understanding and following the Written Torah.
The reason for this is that the Torah requires explication and specification beyond
what is found in it. Here are a number of stanzas from this long poem:
The Law of our God they have twisted and flipped
Allowing the forbidden, the allowed they forbid
Without any reverence or fear.
What of the sukka’s height and breadth?
How many cubits along its length?
The rule of its foundations?
How many grains must be saved for the poor?
Is it inscribed in the written law,
or hidden in the text?

20
 Saadia Gaon

HISTORICAL IMPORTANCE OF RASAG

If we wish to point to the person who had the most profound and wide-
ranging influence upon the development of the Jewish tradition in the
early medieval period, it is indisputably Rabbeinu Saadia Gaon. Rasag
was a revolutionary in many fields. In the discipline of linguistics and
halakhic writing, his work marks a turning point and paradigm shift in
the Jewish tradition. In the realm of parshanut, he is one of the founding
fathers and trailblazers of the Jewish exegesis of Tanakh.
However, it appears that his most important achievement was his
response to the challenges of his age and his combating various sects
and trends with his commentary to the Torah and his magnum opus
Emunot VeDe’ot in an uncompromising way. In so doing, he protected
and preserved the tradition of the Jewish people.

The laws of tzitzit – in the text are we taught

How many strings and how many knots?
Does it specify eight or ten?
All of these, and many more
I ask of readers of the written lore
Are any such details written down?
Were it not for the Talmud and the Mishnah
Where all these are addressed – in the Oral Law
All of these and many more…

21