Bar-Ilan University

Parashat Hashavua Study Center

Shabbat Hagadol/ Pesah 5771/

April 16, 2011
Lectures on the weekly Torah reading by the faculty of Bar-Ilan
University in Ramat Gan, Israel. A project of the Faculty of Jewish
Studies, Paul and Helene Shulman Basic Jewish Studies Center, and the
Office of the Campus Rabbi. Published on the Internet under the
sponsorship of Bar-Ilan University's International Center for Jewish
Identity. Prepared for Internet Publication by the Computer Center Staf
at Bar-Ilan University. Inquiries and comments to: Dr. Isaac Gottlieb,
Department of Bible, gottlii@mail.biu.ac.il

Dr. Baruch Alster

Paul and Helene Shulman Basic Jewish Studies Center

Northern French Exegesis on the Song of Songs

The Song of Songs, read on the intermediate Sabbath of Passover, opens
with the words, "The Song of Songs, by Solomon." In other words, the title
of the work ascribes it to King Solomon, of whom it is said in I Kings (5:12):
"His songs numbered one thousand and five." The Sages deduced from
this that Solomon was the author of Song of Songs. This idea also appears
in homiletic works, such as Song of Songs Rabbah 1.8 [on verse 1]:

Rabbi Judan said: It is to teach you that whoever discourses on the

Torah in public merits that the holy spirit should rest on him. From
whom do you learn this? From Solomon; for because he discoursed
on the Torah in public, he earned the privilege that the holy spirit
rested on him and he composed three books, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes,
and The Song of Songs. (Soncino ed., vol. 9, p. 10) 1

1
Similarly in many other parts of Chapter 1 of Song of Songs Rabbah; likewise in
Tanhuma Beshalah 10; Aggadat Shir ha-Shirim 1, lines 50-82. Many homilies
dealing with a single verse from Song of Song use the expression, "Solomon said,"
or the like.

1
Aside from ascribing the Song of Songs to Solomon, this homily explains
why the Song of Songs was included in the canon because it was written
under the inspiration of the holy spirit. Even if there were Sages who
disputed the sanctity of this book, 2 in the end Rabbi Akiva's emphatic
position was accepted: "All of Scripture is holy, and the Song of Songs is
the Holy of Holies" (Mishnah, Yadayim 3.5).

Most of the medieval commentators took a similar approach and viewed

the Song of Songs as written by Solomon under holy inspiration. For
example, Rabbi Isaiah Mitrani comments on the verse in I Kings:

He also composed one thousand and five songs. Not all of them
were admitted into the canon, for they were not all inspired by the
holy spirit; but those that were inspired by the holy spirit were
admitted into the canon.

Nevertheless, there were certain medieval commentators who viewed the

sanctity of Song of Songs as a more complex question. We discuss their
views below.

One commentator maintained that Song of Songs was not written by

Solomon, but by one of his wives, and that she is the beloved who appears
in this book. This view rests primarily on the fact that the beloved is the
main speaker in the book. Rabbi Isaac Arama (Spain, 15 th century) held
such a view in his commentary on Song of Songs, but he was surely not
the first to think so, for there is a commentary from 12 th-century northern
France, mistakenly ascribed to Rashi, that subscribes to such a view (Song
of Songs 1:1):3

By Solomon. This means songs about Solomon, as in "belonging to

King Ahasuerus" (Esther 1:9), here, "regarding Solomon." Some
claim the beloved of King Solomon composed these songs about
him, since it says in this book, "King Solomon made him a
palanquin" (Song 3:9), "there is Solomon's couch" (ibid., 7). But this
is nonsense, for throughout the book the name of the beloved is not
mentioned, but only the name of Solomon. So we find that Solomon

2
Many view the controversy over whether the scroll of the Song of Songs renders
the hands unclean (Mishnah, Yadayim 3.5) as hinting at such a controversy, thus
the attempt to sequester this work (Avoth de Rabbi Nathan, Version A, 1b). It
seems that one should view similarly the words of Rabbi Jonathan in the homily
where he calls Song of Songs "words to be sung" (Song of Songs Rabbah 1.1.10).
Cf. Baruch Alster, Ahavah Enoshit ve-Zikata le-Ahavah Ruhanit ba-Farshanut ha-
Yehudit le-Shir ha-Shirim, doctoral dissertation, Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan
2007, p. 4, note 13.
3
Manuscript Acq. E Doni 121, from Florence (The National Library of Israel,
Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts, film 18007), which includes the Five
Scrolls and Haftarah readings. Lamentations, Esther and the haftarahs are
accompanied by Rashi's commentary, while Song of Songs, Ruth, and Ecclesiastes
are explained by an anonymous commentary. In the Florentine library all the
commentaries were cataloged as Rashi. Cf. Alster, ibid., pp. 14-16. For notes on
the text cited here, see loc. sit., p. 70.

2
 wrote it, just like "the Proverbs of Solomon" (Prov. 1:1; 10:1), "the
words of Koheleth" (Eccles. 1:1), "the words of Agur" (Prov. 30:1),
"the prophecies of Isaiah" (Isa. 1:1). The wise person will
understand this, for it is the way of women to sing in a chorus But
here it is Solomon who created this song, putting it in the mouth of
the lovers, the woman singing about her beloved. For in all the
words of the song that are not spoken by them both, she says, "My
beloved spoke thus to me" (2:10). Nowhere in the book do you find,
"My beloved [woman] answered me."

This commentary, ascribed to Rashi, mentions but rejects the view that
one of Solomon's wives was the author of Song of Songs. In his opinion,
Solomon was the author, but he wrote the book from a woman's point of
view; the author was a man, the narrator of the poem a woman.
Nevertheless, the opinion that a woman actually wrote Song of Songs was
evidently current in this commentator's time.

Another medieval commentary held that Solomon composed the songs in

this work but did not redact them into a single book. We refer to an
anonymous commentary from northern France that survived on the first
three chapters and was published by Rabbi Simeon Eppenstein over a
century ago.4 This is what the commentator writes on the first verse of
Song of Songs:

The Song of Songs. A special one of the songs by Solomon, for

there were many songs, as it says in Scripture, "his songs numbered
one thousand and five" (I Kings 5:12), and this is one of them. It
must be said that of those songs, wise men chose these songs and
put them together, to teach about the Holy One, blessed be He, and
the Community of Israel, as it is said: a song composed of the
songs by Solomon, for they took of his songs and collected them
into this work, arranging it in the way of the Holy One, blessed be
He, and the Community of Israel, and the rest of the songs they left.
For this was created by holy inspiration and included as part of holy
writ, for it is Holy of Holies, since men of wisdom arranged the
words of Solomon, as it is written: "These too are proverbs of
Solomon, which the men of King Hezekiah of Judah copied" (Prov.
25:1).

According to this commentary, Song of Songs was written in two stages:

first Solomon wrote many songs, not all of them necessary sacred, and
later men of wisdom ("the men of King Hezekiah") collected those songs
that seemed worthy of describing the relationship between G-d and Israel.
Thus this commentator accepts that principle that the work is to be
attributed to Solomon but maintains that Solomon did not write it as a

4
S. Eppenstein, "Fragment d'un commentaire anonyme du Cantique des
Cantiques," REJ 53 (1907), pp. 242-254.

3
single composition, and the songs were gathered together some time
later.5

Another issue that comes up here concerns the sanctity of the work.
According to this commentator, the sanctity does not stem from the songs
themselves that Solomon wrote, nor from his having been inspired by the
holy spirit. When they were composed they were understood as dealing
only with love between a man and a woman. Only by virtue of the way
they were edited by the men of King Hezekiah, who were inspired by the
holy spirit to understand that some of the songs could be interpreted in
terms of G-d's love for Israel, did the Song of Songs enter the holy writ.

Regarding the sanctity of this book, this commentator did not take an
extreme position, for he maintained that Song of Songs entered the canon
by holy inspiration. There is another view, however, by a medieval
commentator from northern France that the book was not written under
holy inspiration but received its status for a diferent reason: its
popularity. This commentary did not absolutely reject the sanctity of the
book, but separated the question of its canonization from the question of
its religious significance:

The Song of Songs this was one of the songs written by

Solomon, who wrote many such, as it is said, "his songs numbered
one thousand and five" (I Kings 5:12). Why did this, of all his songs,
enter the canon? It entered the canon because it had become a
favorite. And because of homilies, reading the songs allegorically:
it entered the canon because it was interpreted as relating to
bondage, their Maker seeking to redeem them and set them apart
from other nations to be His people, and they longing for Him and
trusting in Him, that He will not abandon them for all time but will
redeem them in His great mercy and kindness (accord. Isa. 63:7).
Solomon saw all this in a vision, and wrote it allegorically about him
and his wife and her friends. 6

This commentator, who according to Sarah Japhet dates to the late 12 th or

early 13th century,7 presents two possible reasons why the Song of Songs
was included in the canon: one, in its own right " It entered the canon
because it had become a favorite"; and the other, on account of the Sages
"interpreting it homiletically, therefore it entered the canon and
Solomon saw all this in a vision and wrote it allegorically." But from the
structure of this comments and its non-allegorical interpretation of the
book as a whole, it is clear that the author did not agree with the view of
5
Cf. Bava Batra 15a: "Hezekiah and his followers wrote Isaiah, Proverbs, Song of
Songs and Ecclesiastes."
6
Commentary of Rabbi Joseph Kara, in Mikraot Gedolot Ha-Keter, 2nd CD version
(July 2006). It should be noted that this is not actually Kara's commentary. See
Sara Japhet, "Peshuto shel Mikra be-Shir ha-Shirim: Li-demutam shel Rashi u-
Mamshikhei Darko ke-Mefarshei ha-Peshat," in A. Grossman, S. Japhet (eds.),
Rashi: Demuto ve-Yetzirato, Jerusalem 2009, vol. 1, p. 218.
7
Japhet (loc. sit.), p. 218, 221-222.

4
the midrash, that Solomon wrote the Song of Songs as a holy book. In his
opinion, it was written as a secular work, as stated by the previous
commentator. However the present commentator holds that even the
canonization of the Song of Songs stemmed not from the holy spirit of the
redactors, nor from the force of the allegorical interpretation attached to
the work, but simply because of its popularity.

In conclusion, most of the medieval Bible commentators accepted the

tradition of the Sages that King Solomon wrote the Song of Songs with
holy inspiration. The views which we have presented here attest to the
existence of other independent traditions, especially in northern France,
regarding the reasons for this book's canonization.