The "Ways of Midrash" in the

Biblical Commentaries of
Isaac Abarbanel
Eric Lawee
Stanford University

The prolific and versatile theologian and exegete, Isaac Abarbanel (143
produced a rich corpus of biblical commentaries which, among other things
markable for the creative and variegated interaction that it evinces between
banel and midrash.This article explores characteristic motivations, concer
objectives that governed Abarbanel's incorporation of diverse sorts of mi
dicta into his commentaries, highlighting especially the critical importance
interplay of exegetical and theological considerations in his assessment of
ual (and at times whole classes of) midrashim.
The beginning of the article briefly locates Abarbanel's encounter with th
binic hermeneutic in two salient Iberian contexts.The first, historical, pertai
evolution in medieval Hispano-Jewish tastes in biblical interpretation. There
strong sense among Spanish Jews — stimulated partially, it would seem, by
awareness and appreciation of Christian achievements in this sphere — th
ture's multilayered profundity needed urgently to be probed. The second
concerns an immanent development within the discipline of Hebrew scr
exegesis as practiced by Iberian-born commentators. Reservations about o
ity to inclusion of midrashim in works of biblical commentary like that of
played by earlier Andalusian interpreters receded and midrashic dicta wer
variety of reasons, increasingly accorded a significant place and warm recep
works by commentators such as Nahmanides, Bahya ben Asher, Abarbane
Arama, and others.

Seen in terms of its complex historical backdrop and the diver

practices of earlier gaonic and medieval writers, Isaac Abarbane
with rabbinic Judaism's theological, moral, historical, and hom
word, nonlegal) legacy was notably wide in scope. Like many o
cessors, this celebrated turn of the sixteenth-century scholar1

(1) The fullest biography and intellectual profile remains B.Netanyahu,Don Isa
Statesman Statesman and Philosopher (yd ed.; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society,
date bibliography on Abarbanel's thought and writings, see my "Isaac Abarban
Achievement and Literary Legacy in Modern Scholarship: A Retrospective and

1c>7
 108 ERIC LAWEE [2]

theologically problemati
taken literally, could prov
bued with the teachings
pled with the claims of
trines which they now
hidden in midrashic and a
interpreters, he had to
terpretation in his bibli
ment which saw Christi
biblical testimonia) as wit
ish blasphemy and fooli
Abarbanel had to deal w
mary in ter religious adv
tage,at least had to be n
lemic which set the stage
and aggadic interpretati
portantly, it was in the
sages had broached the
whole life long: regardi
and eschatology, the Jew
mandments, patterns in h
theodicy, life in this wor
such vital topics, Abarb
gadic inheritance for enli
Abarbanel either sought
There can be no questio

Studies Studies in MedievalJewish

press). Abarbanel's biblical com
PerushPerush 'alha-torah,g vols.(
Torah ve-Da'at, 1955)\Perush 'a
remiah, and Ezekiel); Perush
196 1961 ) (for the Minor Prophe
ual biblical books.

(2) See Marc Saperstein, Decoding the Rabbis (Cambridge, Mass. : Harvard University Press,
1980).
(3) Ibid., 15-20. Here and in what follows, I use"midrash"to refer to nonlegal rabbinic ex
egetical dicta and"aggadah"to refer to freestanding (i.e.,non-exegetical) sayings or stories. For
more on these terms, see the literature cited below, n. 5.
(4) See, e.g. ,Jeremy Cohen, The Friars and the Jews (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1982);
Robert Chazan,.Daggers of Faith ( Be rkeley : U niversi ty of California Press, 1989), and most recently,
albeit briefly, on the subject, Lucy Pick,"Christians and Jews in Thirteenth-Century Castile: The
Career and Writings of Rodrigo Jiménez de Rada, Archbishop of Toledo (1209-47)," (Ph.D.
diss., University of Toronto, 1995) 214.
[3] THE "WAYS OF MIDRASH" log

nonlegal rabbinic discourse in Abarbanel's vas

large and would, among other things, require
and earlier medieval background.The aim her
plifyplify and analyze various of Abarbanel's res
of Scripture as these come to light in his bibl
tifytify larger points of reference for understa
sion surprise that like many of his premoder
cessors, Abarbanel combines in his exegesis a
or contextual sense (peshat) with other levels
eluded, and that like nearly all such writers he n
systematically (nor, despite a considerable inv
have modern scholars reached anything near
pecially as regards the definition of midrash ).5A
the distinction between peshat and derash in
tainly worthwhile.

(5) On the meaning of peshat and contemporary think

ing,see Stephen Garfi n kel "Applied Peshat : Historical-Cr
The The Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 22 (1993) 21
peshat peshat in the premodern period as "as flexible and subje
timer see Frank Talmage, review ofJewish Exegesis of the Boo
the the American Oriental Society 99(1979) 111. The standard
interpretation"— has increasingly been rejected. Cf. in l
idowicz's comment of several decades back (made in a broa
tatiotatio is a contradictio in adjecto. All interpretatio transcends
can only be identical with itself, repeating itselfr("On Inter
[Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1974] 49). In wha
"peshat" as "peshat" as is but, when translating, render it variously
"Definitions" and discussions of midrash and aggadah a
thetic study see Yonah Fraenkel,Darkhei ha2aggadah veha-
tggt). Other noteworthy discussions are Joseph Heineman
Keter, 1974) 7-15; James L.KugeI,"Two Introductions to Mi
David Stern, s.vv. "Aggadah" and"Midrash",Contemporary Jewi
Critical Critical Critical Concepts, Movements, and Beliefs, Arthur A.
Scribners,1987)7-12,613-19.For additional sources,see Ga
The The Study of Ancient Judaism, Jacob Neusner (ed.) (New
definition appears on p. 62 ). For what herein is called m
'aggadah'aggadah (3rd ed.;Jerusalem : Magnes, 1974) remains ind
e.g., on its apologetic character, Fraenkel, Darkhei ha-'agga
"serious consideration to differences among documents an
constructions of Rabbinic Judaism? Early Judaism and Its Mo
George W. E.Nickelsburg [eds.][Philadelphia: Fortress, 1g
and and for a contemporary critique, Daniel Royarin,Intertextu
ington:Indiana University Press, 1990] 5-11 ).For one of A
on the nature of midrash, see the citation at the beginnin
section below. Though rabbinic legal interpretations of S
 HO ERIC LAWEE [4]

The following essay, how

banel found various mid
is pitched differently. It
and objectives that gove
sorts of midrashic dicta
it will be remembered,
the most influential co
dieval or early modern J
ject would require prior
ture of Scripture and t
Holy Writ. As for a qua
the forbidding size of
of midrash therein (tho
below in order to prove
Still, while no number of
contexts and tones in w
biblical commentaries,
of prominent patterns a
interest as well.

So as not to lose the forest for the trees, it will be well at the outset to pro
vide an outline of some of the main patterns to emerge. One is so striking, re
current, and noticeably characteristic of Abarbanel in contrast to earlier Jew
ish exegetes that it merits first mention. Abarbanel channeled the lion's share
of his literary energy into biblical commentary but he wrote extensive theo
logical tracts as well. Moreover, as these latter were permeated by biblical ex
egesis, so Abarbanel's biblical commentaries allow his reader to take a full
measure of his abiding religio-philosophic concerns. The characteristic in
terplay of exegesis and theology in Abarbanel's writings is especially marked
in the biblical commentaries and of these in the commentaries on the Penta

teuch especially. To understand the treatment of midrashim in Abarbanel's

biblical commentaries, then, it is critical to be alert both to hermeneutic prin
ciples and techniques and to Abarbanel's general theological sensibilities
and specific religious teachings. As will be seen, for Abarbanel one aim of
biblical exegesis, indeed the primary one, was explication of Scripture's sim
pie sense but to him doing interpretive justice to Scripture also meant gener
ating theologically probing and religiously edifying renderings of Holy Writ.
Even in seeking to uncover peshat he at times found midrashim to be help
ful but it was as part of his effort to realize his additional interpretive aims

sented challenges to medieval Jewish writers, these were largely of a different sort; see Jay M.
Harris, How Do We Know This?: Midrash and the Fragmentation of Modern Judaism (Albany: State
University of New York Press, 1995) 73-101.
 [5] THE "WAYS OF MIDRASH111 "

that he accorded midrashim their prim

More generally, the survey below rev
lowing general theses: that, most mod
getical work notwithstanding, Abarbanel
as a seeker of Scripture's plain sense; t
rabbinic views, methods, and motifs was
taries; that, however, for Abarbanel the
evocation of or spur to Scripture's sim
mining whether they should have a pla
that this latter truth reflects the fact th
"the method of peshat"Abarbanel belie
to relay others of Scripture's "seventy fa
spiritual). It was when he sought to impa
embedded in Scripture that midrash c
men taries. Before turning to elucidation
in order about some of the larger cont
religious, in which they ought to be und

Iberian Contexts

As it did not take place within a vacuum, it seems appropri

the theme of Abarbanel's encounter with midrash by locat
briefly, in a few larger settings. A contemporary historical di
gested by Isaac Arama's report of his parishioners'concerns
make their way amidst a highly sophisticated Christian cultur

This is what they say :"The Christian scholars and sages r

and seek answers in their academies and churches, thereby ad
to the Torah and the prophets. . . . Why should the divine To
its narratives and pronouncements be as a veiled maiden
flocks of her friends and her students? The Gentiles search enthusias

tically for religious and ethical content, using all appropriate hermen
eutical techniques. . . . But [the purpose of ] our Torah commentators
... is only to explain the grammatical forms of words and the simple
meaning of the stories and commandments. They have not attempted
to fill our need or to exalt the image of the Torah to our own people by
regaling them with gems from its narratives and laws!'7

(6) Commentary on the Former Prophets, 13. Cp. Num. Rab. 13:15 for the image of the TorahVsev
enty faces." For rabbinic and early medieval elaborations of this idea see Gershom Scholem, On
the the Kabbalah and Its Symbolism (New York: Schocken, 1965) 62-63.
(7) 'Aqedat yishaq, 5 vols. (1849; photo-offset Jerusalem : Books Export, i960) 1:[1r-1v]; as
 112 ERIC I.AWEE [6]

Arama's description of
forms of words and the
recalls Abarbanel's unfla
men taries, he opined, c
ficial meaning of the text
exegesis and the concomit
needed urgently to be p
day,in part, it would se
achievements in this sphe
a response to such popu
Undeniable, however, is
with biblical "gems," wr
for help.
Turning to immanent developments within the discipline of medieval He
brew biblical interpretation, it should be noted that, for a variety of reasons,
the lukewarm, even negative attitude of Andalusian commentators towards
midrash receded in the wake of Spanish Jewry's transfer from Islamic to
Christian rule in the twelfth century. Nahmanides, the first and ultimately
most influential Hebrew biblical exegete to emerge from Christian Spain,
proves the point.Though he dissented from and even occasionally criticized
midrashim, Nahmanides defended them as well and bristled when he found
ibn Ezra displaying what he took to be irreverence towards them!0 He also in
corporated rabbinic exegesis into his commentaries far more than did his
Spanish predecessors and, as one concerned with the biblical text's mysti
cal dimension, made theosophical reinterpretation of midrash a significant
component of his exegetical expression!1 In his slightly later commentary on
the Torah, Bahya ben Asher formally included the midrashic interpretive

translated in Marc Saperstein,/etràA Preaching 1200-1800 (New Haven: Princeton University

Press, 1989) 393.
(8) Commentary on the Former Prophets, 13.
(9) See Eleazar Gutwirth,"Actitudes judias hacia los Christianos en la Espana del siglo XV :
Ideario de los traductores del Latin''Actes Segundo Congreso International Encuentro de las très cul
turasturas (Toledo, 1985) 189-96.1 have also discussed this phenomenon in my "'The Refined Peo
pie of Edom': Evolving Jewish Attitudes Towards Christian Society in the Late Middle Ages"
(paper presented at the Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, Toronto, Ontario, December
1994)•
(10) Bernard Septimus,"'Open Rebuke and Concealed Love': Nahmanides and the Andalu
sian Tradition "Rabbi Moses Nahmanides (Rambari): Explorations in His Religious and Literary Virtuos
ity,ity, Isadore Twersky (ed.) (Cambridge, Mass. : Harvard University Press, 1983) 17.
(11) Elliot R.Wolfson,"By Way of Truth : Aspects of Nahmanides' Kabbalistic Hermeneutic,"
AJS Review 14(1989)175-77.
 [7] THE "WAYS OF MIDRASH" II3

plane in his exegetical program alongside th

and kabbalistic planes!2 If for Jewish exegetes l
biblical interpretation was"anchored primaril
ical exposition of individual words and phras
tors like Nahmanides — and Abarbanel and Arama far more so — found

this definition of the aims of biblical exegesis much too narrow and super
ficial. In response, they developed broader conceptions of the exegetical
enterprise wherein midrash occupied an increasingly significant place!4

Abarbanel as Pashtan

Throughout his commentaries, it is less his broad conception of

terpretation that Abarbanel stresses in statements of exegetical i
his paramount preoccupation with explication ofpeshutoshelmiqra}5 H
ments often follow the famous formulation of his eleventh-cent
ern French predecessor Rashi —"I come only to present Scriptur
and such aggadot as explain the biblical passages in a fitting man
but omit the part which speaks of rabbinic dicta that fittingly
biblical text. Indeed, in his earliest and fullest statement of exe
pose, penned in Spain in 1483, Abarbanel went to so far as to des
"an evil and bitter thing to me that the great rabbi Rashi contented
in his commentaries on the Holy Scriptures in most matters with th
the rabbinic sages expounded!"7At least at first glance, then, Abarba
in line with the Andalusian school of Jewish biblical interpretation
of midrash's place in a biblical commentary. The foremost transmitt
school's views and achievements to the Jewries of Christian Eur
ham ibn Ezra, wondered in the introduction to his commentar
Pentateuch why latter-day writers should incorporate midrashim
exegetical works when "we already have midrashim in the works

(12) Rabenu Bahya.Beur 'alha-torah,3 vols.,C.D.Chavel (ed.)(Jerusalem:MossadH

1966) 1:5.
(13) Septimus,"Nahmanidesr 18 (describing Abraham ibn Ezra's definition of the exegetical
enterprise),
(14) For extensive use of midrash and midrashic methods in the exegesis of one of Abar
banel's and Arama's Iberian contemporaries, see Abraham Gross, Iberian Jewry from Twilight to
Dawn:Dawn: The World of Rabbi Abraham Saba (Leiden : Brill, 1995) 55-58.
(15) E.g., Comm. on Gen. 79 (first question), on Gen 2:4; Comm. on Exod.%1%,on Exod 32:10;
Comm.Comm.Comm. on Zech. 229, on Zech 10:8.

(16) For this and various other formulations of Rashi that attest to this intent, see Benjamin
J.Celles,J.Celles, Peshat and Derash in the Exegesis of Rashi (Leiden: Brill, 1981) 9-27.
(17) Commentary on the Former Prophets, 13.
114 ERIC LAWEE [8]

cients."Similarly, he stresse
in the face of midrashic in
cally enunciated byjewish e
Spain especially who, philol
red grammatical and contex
minds fanciful rabbinic her
Andalusian position when, r
of biblical interpretation, Ate
sential but rather the true p
one of his last biblical comm
Injuxtaposing unessential mi
that midrashim typically co
simple sense. And so, in the
blessed memory have said"a
to the peshat" or "method of
interpretation by labeling vi
tion,and so forth?3 Frequen
parting what he deems the
this verse in a fresh and plea

(18) Perushei ha-torah(18) Perushei ha-tora

sad Ha-Rav Kook,1g76) 1:7,10.

(19) See, e.g., forjudah ibn Balaam
ha-yehudit: pirqeiha-yehudit: pirqeiha-yehudit

Jonah ibn Janach, Sefer ha-riqrn

Akademiyah Le-Lashon Ha-Ivrit, 1
(20) Ateret zeqenim (Warsaw, 1894)
(21) Comm.onExod. 227, on Exod
(2 2) E.g., Comm. on Gen. 100, on G
57,70, on Lev 9:22,12:6; Comm.on N
15 15:63 ; Comm. onJudg. 111, on Judg
(23) He will record a rabbinic vie
cording to the peshat" (e.g., Comm.
note that another commentator,
conform to the simple sense (e.g., C
mentator, usually Rashi, on the gro
do not fit thepeshat"(e.g., Comm. o
96; for a similar case involving Nah
distinguishing the rabbinic reading
mer as"homiletical,"Abarbanel may
objective or that"Scripture does no
32:10; Comm. on Josh. 75, on Josh
and related statements in rabbinic
peshutopeshuto shel miqra u-midrasho s
(24) Comm. on Gen. 105, on Gen 3
 [9] THE "WAYS OF MIDRASH115 "

functorily deferent ("the sages propagated m

matter, all said wisely, but according to the pesha
ical ("the sages said . .. but according to the p
this. . .").26
With a frequency and nonchalance found in few other medieval Rabbanite
writings,writings, Abarbanel issues blunt denunciations of midrashim. Among other
things, they are branded"unlikely (rahoqfor "very unlikely;27' "insufficient"or
"dubious""dubious" (bilti maspiq and analogs),"28 and "weak',' "very strange (zar)" or "evi
dendydendy weak'.'29Though rarely condemned so roundly, "Targum Onqelos"is
not spared?0 At times, Abarbanel vents his emphatic dissatisfaction with a
midrash. He may be especially perturbed if the exposition has won the ex
egetical limelight via Rashi's commentary. To him, the meaning of Moses' en
joinder to gather together all Israelites including the taf every seven years
(Deuteronomy 31:12) was clear. And so, after citing the rabbinic interpréta
tion adduced by Rashi he declares:

It is most disturbing to me : how could they ask in their homily ( agga

datam)"datam)"datam)"why should the taf come?"and respond: "to bestow reward on
those who bring them"?31... Behold, the Torah explains why the taf
come and it does not say that the reason is to give reward to those who
bring them but,"that their children who do not know may hear and
learn to fear the Lord . . . (Deut 31:13),"since study and training befit
youths.32 Now given that the Torah explained the matter's true reason,

(25) Comm. onExod. 230, on Exod 24:6-8.

(26) Comm.on Num. 154, on Num 31:17.
(27) For the former, Comm. on Exod. 241,011 Exod 25:5; Comm. on Num. 114(twentieth ques
tion),on Num 23:1; Comm. on Josh. 36, on Josh 6:25. For the latter, Comm. on Num. 55,011 Num
12:2-3; Comm.onDeut.255,on Deuteronomy 27:14-26; Comm.on Kgs.452 (sixth question),on
1 Kgs 5:6.
(28) Comm. on Lev.92,136,on Lev 16:5-16 and Lev 23:27-32; Comm. on Num. 17 (eighth ques
tion),on Num 5:11-6:21.
(29) E.g.,Comm.on Gen.5 (second question) on Genesis 1,173 (sixth question) on Gen 2:3,and
203 on Gen 15:13; Comm. on Deut. 352, on Deut 34:6; Comm. on Josh. 90, on Josh 24:26; Comm. on
Sam.,Sam., 164. For "strangeness"as a designation of midrashic-aggadic "remoteness from rationality"
in Maimonides (whence, one assumes, Abarbanel absorbed this usage) see Isadore Twersky, In
troductiontroduction to the Code ofMaimonides (Mishneh Iitrah)(New Haven :Yale University Press, 1980) 387.
(30) Comm. on Gen. 83,234, on Gen 3:5,18:2 2 ; Comm. on Num. 47 (fifteenth question ),on Num
11:25(Onqelos' interpretation is "very strange").Naturally there is also praise for targumic ren
derings,e.g.,in Comm.onExod. 154,on Exod 18:11.
(31) Hullin 3a.
(32) At first, Abarbanel's identification of the "children who do not know" with the taf (usu
ally translated as "little ones" or "infants" — hence the spur for the midrashic comment) seems
problematic ; but the idea that taf may refer to educable youths reflects Abarbanel's view ex
 116 ERIC LAWEE [10]

how could they come alo

the 'aggadah?s3

A chronological developm
wards what he considers m
of the literary barbs he d
daily impatient with them.
only repudiates the negat
dren of Israef'mentioned in
point of departure,but als
ing in one instance what he
tain to them?4 Whether o
time is correct, the overall
late Abarbanel regularly c
tions"of Scripture, often to
Abarbanel neglected simp
his commentary on the T
method of philosophic inve

The Quest for Peshat and Midrash

His repeated and emphatic statements regarding his quest for peshat not
withstanding, Abarbanel incorporated midrashim into his biblical commen
taries often. At times, he did so because he apparently viewed a given midrash
as the embodiment of peshat : "and it shall be for you for a fringe that you
may look upon it. . . and that you go not about after your heart and your
eyes [Numbers 15:39]"—"the sages said'"after your heart"refers to heresy

pressed elsewhere that the term encompasses all those below age twenty. Cf. his commentary
on Exod 12:37 (Comm. on Exod., 106) where, given the end of the verse ("six hundred thousand
on foot that were men besides taf), this view seems entirely reasonable.
(33) Comm.onDeut. 291, on Deut 31:12-13.
(34) 'Ateret zeqenim, 1-4,8-9 (and for other examples of criticism of midrashim in the work,
pp. 17,61,69). For discussion see my "Isaac Abarbanel's 'Stance Towards Tradition': The Case of
Ateret Zeqenim" AJS Review 22Ateret Zeqenim" AJS Review 22 (1997),in press.

(35) Meyer Waxman, A History of Jewish Literature (New York: Bloch Publishing Co., 1933) 2.46.
(36) M.S. Segal,"R.Yishaq'Abravanel be-tor parshan ha-miqra"7arfe 8(1937)263.Segal only
makes a belated, passing reference to peshat in his account of Abarbanel's commentaries'char
acter and aims.

(37) Most recently, Shaul Regev ("Ha-shitah ha-parshanit shel ha-'Abarbanel," Mahanayim 4
[1992] 242-49) has also neglected to grapple with (or even mention) Abarbanel's self-perception
as primarily apashtan.Eor an exception to this regnant pattern of neglect, see Samuel Griin
berg,"Eine Leuchte der Bibelexegese um die Wende des Mittelalters "Jeschurun 15(1928)25, who
correctly stresses Abarbanel's preoccupation with simple-sense interpretation.
[11] THE "WAYS OF MIDRASH117 "

and "after your eyes"refers to licentiousness.' And

should not believe false things nor be drawn after hi
in this verse at least,"heart"refers to the sphere of i
realm of emotion and desire Abarbanel has only t
references to heresy and licentiousness to encomp
passion generally and his peshat is complete. Similarl
Abarbanel suggests that Abraham decided to go to
manded to do so (Genesis 12:1) since he knew tha
Israel makes one wise'and he was seeking wisdom and
the way that he incorporates the midrash into his
implies that the rabbinic exposition is at one with
may be, in both these cases one begins to glimps
preciation of midrash's theological dimension. Th
garding fringes delineates the two main domains,
wherein he considered the fundamental human ch
rash concerning Abraham lent credence to his con
as a process in which the"chosen"chose God first.40
Yet even where he did not deem a midrash evocat
sense, Abarbanel often accorded it a place in his exeg
odological pronouncements appear to place him i
ibn Ezra and his ilk as regards the role of midrashim
commentaries tell a different story. If not "essential
the fruits of the rabbinic hermeneutic stimulatin
even entertaining. As such, midrashim were given
elaboration of Holy Writ. But on what basis did A
midrashim and condemn others? An investigation
to two rabbinic expositions, both of which he de
scriptural peshat, suggests the variety of consider
praisal of individual rabbinic dicta while illuminat
cal method and concerns generally. Again, the aim is
banel distinguishes peshat from derash in these cases
moves in radically different directions once the dist
In Gen 1:11, God commands the first herbage to com

(38) Comm. on Num.86, on Num 15:39. Cp• Sifrei to Numbers 11

(39) Comm. on Gen. 192,011 Gen 12:1. Cp.Bava Qama 158b.
(40) For this latter doctrine see Shaul Regev,"Behirat 'am yisra
"Abravanel""Abravanel" 'Asufot 2 (1989) 271-83. The idea that Abraham l
any direct divine command is therefore congenial to Abarbanel.
a constituent of his simple-sense interpretation supports such a
that Abraham might have conceived to do so : he knew that the
acquisition of the spiritual wisdom he sought.
 118 ERIC LAWEE [12]

fruit tree to come forth"a

herbage came forth"after
binic sage remarked :

When the Holy One, bles

trees, the herbage applie
... if on the trees which
the Holy One enjoined "aft
to us! Immediately each pl

Sensitive to the problem,

ment on Gen 1:12.42By con
thirteenth-century south
the expression"after its k
to therein :

The sages were troubled that it did not say "after its kind"in the divine
command to the grass and herb-yielding seed and as a result expounded
what they expounded ... as Rashi recorded.... It seems to me, how
ever, that there is no place for their question according to thepeshat. In
the command it says," [The earth shall sprout forth] grass, herb yielding
seed, fruit trees yielding fruit after its kind." The phrase "after its kind"
does not refer to the fruit tree alone but to the grass and herb yielding
seed as well.43

On this reading, the plants, like the tree, simply did as told. As for the discrep
ancy between the single occurrence of "after its kind"in Gen 1:11 and dou
ble occurrence in the verse following, Abarbanel casts the issue as a matter of
style, not substance : the repetition is "for greater explicitness (tosefet be'ur)!'44
Elsewhere, explaining the elliptical warning given to Moses by Pharaoh to
"Look that evil (ra'ah) is before your face (Exod 10:10)',' Rashi had commented:

(41) Hullin 60a.

(42) Perushei Rashi 'al ha-torah, C.D. Chavel (ed.)(6th ed.; Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook,
1990) 5. Translations from Rashi's commentary generally follow Pentateuch with Targum Onkelos,
HaphtarothHaphtaroth and Rashi's Commentary, 5 vols.,M. Rosenbaum and A.M.Silbermann (trans, and an
notators)notators) (Jerusalem : Silbermann Family, 1973).
(43) Comm. on Gen. 51, on Gen 1:12. Cp. Perushei rabbi David Qimhi (RaDaQ) 'al ha-torah, Moshe
Kemelhar (ed.) (Jerusalem : Mossad Ha-Rav Kook, 1970) 15, on Gen 1:11.
(44) For "greater explicitness"in Kimhi's exegesis, see Frank E.Talmage,David Kimhi:the man
and the commentaries (Cambridge, M A: Harvard University Press, 1975) 106.
[13] THE "WAYS OF MIDRASH" HQ

[Understand this] as the Targum does [i.e.,"Se

to do will turn against you."] I have heard a
There is a star the name of which is "evil (ra'ah)
"By my astrological art I see that that star is ris
wilderness. It is an emblem of blood and slaug
sinned by worshiping the calf and God inten
said in his prayer :"Wherefore should the Egy
brought them forth together with [the star
this is, indeed, what he [Pharaoh] has already
fore you!'At once, the Lord . .. changed the
was emblematic] to the blood of circumcision

After citing the midrash adduced by Rashi in ful

"the name of which is 'evil'" the sages had mea
der and the spilling of blood" — Abarbanel declare
rash rash nakhon hu)" since Pharaoh was "learned in
then tentatively suggests three possible ways to p
according to its peshat46
Seeing as neither conformed to his understan
why does Abarbanel rebuff the midrash concer
accepting the one concerning the star named "e
former on straightforward exegetical grounds: th
enjoined all vegetation to come forth"after its kin
and that the repetition of this phrase in Gen 1:12
itness."Yet coming from Abarbanel, this argum
unlike such exegetical predecessors as Kimhi.up
here apparendy relies in part, Abarbanel was not
principles to make sense of scriptural discrepan
stipulation regarding divergences in the two versi
recorded in 2 Samuel 22 and Psalms 18 that"itis un
variations small and large entered into it or that
had already fashioned for no reason" 47or, in a clo

(45) Perushei Rashi 'al ha-torah, 200.

(46) Comm. on Exod., 82-83. In justification of my translat
elsewhere where Abarbanel refers to rabbinic dicta as such,
garding Ibn Ezra, at times, on such dicta (Four Approaches to th
(trans.) [Albany: State University Press, 1991] 187) :"[w]hen
means one that is'reasonable'and'compatible with the plain
ily that it has exclusive validity." This being so,"correct"does
of the term when used in this way.
(47) Comm. on Sam. 389,00 2 Samuel 2 2.
120 ERIC LAWEE [14]

variations in two adjacent ve

stones after crossing the Jo
When,When, then, Abarbane
rash, one may rightly susp
exegesis masks other concer
What, for example, was A
formulated an"a fortiori a
creation had deviated from
rash that had posited such
peshat,peshat, Abarbanel save
could not simply ignore the
vexed him for reasons whi
out even citing it, Abarba
Rashi recorded in his com
omy 31, a perplexing rabb
stream via Rashi's commen
ostensibly ostensibly "simple"i
cally offending exposition,
basis in Scripture's peshat.
Rashi had included the ex
commentary as well, sugge
gum, that he did not cons
Apart from its tenuous text
from its denotation by tak
ever, the midrash possessed
"simple"interpretation; m
interpretations implies, this
while it unabashedly diveste
Exod 10:10, the midrash a
parate verses in which this
Beyond, however, its exe
merits. First, it presented a
edly relished: Pharaoh insist
an astrally-determined cau
departure from Egypt. Fur
inclination to view rabbin

(48) Comm.onDeut. 240 (sixth qu

course to stylistic principles wher
(49) See my "On the Threshold
Biblical Commentaries of Isaac Ab
 [15] THE "WAYS OF MIDRASH121 "

corded with Abarbanel's image of ancient Egyp

speculation. Like medieval Jewish thinkers gen
the stars affected the fates of people and natio
that astrology was especially prevalent in ancie
ample, that Abraham had acquired his mastery
then, the midrash's rendering of Pharaoh's warni
the the peshat, it nonetheless remained"fitting"s
exegetical ingenuity it was theologically profo
tic. One may surmise that it was due to these fac
midrash adduced by Rashi and translated it int
terms before elucidating Pharaoh's warning, as
to the peshat"
Though willing to include midrashim that confl
commentaries, Abarbanel obviously had to be sele
Ezra had noted cheerlessly,"the end of the matter
no end."32 Principles of selection varied. The mid
dial herbage was treated due to its problemati
in Rashi's commentary. That concerning Phara
because, apart from exegetical considerations,
theological and historical conceptions. Other m
suggested Balaam's prophecy was equal or even
gave rise to pages of explanation since their d
to be reworked in order to preserve such basic
primacy of Mosaic prophecy.53 Often, however, m
because they grapple with the very same exeg
Abarbanel. Moses'claim that he had been refus
on account of the Israelites and the divine respon
several vexed points: was it not Moses'own failu
that had occasioned the devastating divine dec
what did the divine rejoinder "let it suffice for y
cree had in no way been mitigated? To these q
many answers a string of which Abarbanel lists.
concludes that"the sole intention here is to understand the verses accord

ing to . . . the method of peshat"54

(5<‫ )נ‬Netanyahu, Don Isaac Abravanel, 118-20; Shaul Regev, "Meshihiyut ve-'astrologiyah be
haguto shel rabbi Yishaq 'Abravanel," 'Asufot 1(1987)169-87.
(51) Comm.on Kgs.478,on 1 Kgs3:12.
(52) Perushei ha-torah, 1:9.
(53) Comm. onDeut. 316,354-59, on Deut 34:10.
(54) Ibid. 34 (fourth question), on Deut 3:26.
 122 ERIC LAWEE [16]

Midrash and the "Method of Peshat"

Abarbanel wrote no treatise on the relationship between the ra

meneutic and the"method (derekh) of peshat"(a term rooted in
cal lexicon of Abraham ibn Ezra).55At times, in counterposing
charts as if on a graph the proximity of results furnished by the
to the products of the second. Thus a midrash may be "close to
sense,"inclined towards it, or, as with the rabbinic account of t
prayer, be"far from the method of peshat?56The two methods are
as "on a continuum" than as "an actual dichotomy."57 It is und
then, that they at times yield distinct but compatible results. Follo
is presumably his contextual interpretation of the divine blessi
upon Abraham prior to his departure from his father's home, A
scribes as"also fitting (nakhon)"the midrash that the patriarch
regarding offspring, wealth, and fame since traveling diminishes a
The purport is that the midrash, like thepeshat, derives from a dis
pretive stance with its own motivations, goals, and methodol
ings. In an important early statement of exegetical purpose (penned
in 1483), Abarbanel refers to the"words of the [earlier medieva
tors and the ways of the midrashot."59 The implication is that med
mentators, whatever their differences, share a roughly similar glo
cal outlook and aim whereas the rabbinic hermeneutic compris
different different "ways"and goals. The grounds for the validity of bot
Abarbanel's eyes — and, indeed, of other exegetical methods d
exploration of the biblical text's deeper significance (e.g., typ
philosophic-allegorical interpretation) — merit separate study
though, Abarbanel's celebration of and stress on the need for m
exegesis (in sharp contrast to, for example, ibn Ezra)60 is in no sma
due to his view of Scripture as a polysemous text. This is a quality of
that, occasionally borrowing formulations from his colleague I
he oft found occasion to highlight.61

(55) Septimus,"Nahmanides," 1g n.30.

(56) Comm. on Sam. 280, on 1 Sam 25:1 ; Comm. on Gen. 78, on Gen 1-2 ; Comm
on 1 Sam 2:1-10.

(57) For this terminology, see Garfinkel,"Applied Peshat',' 20 n. g.

(58) Comm.on Gen.1go-g1,on Gen 12:2.
(gg) Commentary on the Former Prophets, 13.
(60) See Uriel Simon,"Shnei 'eqronot-yesod shel perush ha-torah le-Ra'ba': ba-'avotot ha
diqduq niqshar uve-'enei ha-da'at y\Vhs,h3x"Mehqarim be-miqra'uve-hinukh mugashim le-prof'Mo
she she 'Arend, Dov Raffel (ed.) (Jerusalem : Touro College, 1gg6) 110-11.
(61) E.g .,Commentary on the Former Prophets, 13 (where, it would seem, multiple significance is
apparently attributed to all of Scripture and not just the Torah). See also Zevah pesah as in Seder
 [17] THE "WAYS OF MIDRASH123 "

Abarbanel's discussion of the offerings of the

the time of the tabernacle's erection (Num 7:12
tic differences between his"method oïpeshat"and t
also illustrating how Abarbanel could find the
even as they departed from his vision of peshat. I
ferings the sages suggested that each prince had
in accordance with prophetic traditions handed
items that symbolically prefigured"great events"in
ment.Judah's prince, Nahshon ben Amminadab
kingship in mind, since Jacob had appointed Ju
Thus, his offering of a dish and basin symbolized
David who would in time to come spring from him
records the very elaborate rabbinic treatment o
sizes the rabbinic approach to the other eleven t
scribes yet another midrashic interpretation of th
tail, then states that he has included all of these m
you that all their [the sages'] words [concerning th
and the honeycomb's flow (Psalm 19:11 )'and that t
merated] . . . are resolved as well according to thei
In contrast to the midrashim that he cites, Abarbanel's contextual inter
pretation of the offerings places the accent on plausibility, practicality, and
concreteness. He raises two basic questions. First, how did it come about that
twelve men of presumably unequal means who, according to the midrash,
were acting independently, ended up bringing identical offerings? Second,

haggadahhaggadah shel pesah (1872; photo-offset Jerusalem : Sefarim Toraniyim, 1985)46, an account rem
iniscent of various formulations of Thomas Aquinas (e.g., Summa Theokgiae, la. I, to [Cambridge :
Blackfriars, 1964] 39 and Quaestiones quodlibetales, 7,q.6,a.3 [ 16] [Italy: Marietti, 1956] 148). An inte
grated study of medieval Jewish and Christian teachings on polysemy generally is a desideratum.
For now, regarding non-biblical literature, see Moshe Idel,"On Symbolic Self-Interpretation in
Thirteenth-Century Jewish Writings',' Hebrew University Studies in Literature and the Arts 16(1988)
90-96 and for a case study involving biblical interpretation, Giusseppi Sermoneta,"Prophecy
in the Writings of R.Yehuda Romano" Studies in Medieval Jewish History and Literature II, Isadore
Twersky (ed.) (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984) 337-74. For borrowings from
Arama on this score,see"Inheritancer 159. Here is not the place to enter into an involved dis
cussion of Abarbanel's"plagiarism? Suffice it to say that already in or close to his own day, Abar
banel was accused of illegitimate borrowing of the ideas and verbal formulations of others (see
regarding the case of Arama"Mikhtav le-ha-rav R.Meir ben-ha-rav R.Yishaq 'Aram a',' Ha - maggid
2[1858]gg;reproduced in Sarah Heller-Wilensky, R.Yishaq'Aramahu-mishnato[Jerusalem, 1956],
52-53) and subsequent writers have regularly repeated this claim.The phenomenon is unde
niable but is also considerably more complex than meets the eye. For some discussion and am
pie bibliography, see my "Abarbanel's Intellectual Achievement" (above, n. 1 ).
(62) Num.Rab. 13:14.
(63) Comm. on Num., 28-29.
 124 ERIC LAWEE [18]

as earlier commentators had w

scribe the uniform offerings in
redundancy"?64redundancy"?64Abarb
ing been appointed the heads o
to God to promote their succes
agreed to make the same don
plays and avoid inciting feelin
needed in the tabernacle — dis
imals and so forth. Scripture
phasize the parity of the dona
them65In this simple-sense inte
by the uncertainties of the he
distant future (with which, in c
assumed them to have been ap
only plausible way possible, by
that base passions can underm
venting civil strife. (Simple-sens
of less noble features of human
affairs.) Finally, in bringing the
concrete uses of their donations
meanings as heralds of future e
And yet: despite his markedly
Abarbanel insists that the sag
difficulties that he has raised
explains both how each prince
nacle (through divine inspirati
identical offering in Holy Wri
offering signified different eve
Here again, though (as in the
ing the first herbage) Abarban
considerations that almost
cer
binic readings of Numbers 7.
Nahmanides, Abarbanel believe
history. This presumption in tu
of midrashim whose rationale w
"deeds of the ancestors "repor

(64) Ibid., 25 (seventh and eighth ques

shehsheh ben Nahman, 2 vols., C. B. Ch
on Num 7:2.
(65) Comm. on Num., 27-28.
(66) Heinemann,ha-aggadah, 40-41.
[1g] THE "WAYS OF MIDRASH125 "

in the lives of their "children" in times to come.67

typological midrashim and rabbinic dicta of a s
occasion surprise that Abarbanel heartily endo
symbolic interpretations of the princes'offerin
accord with [future events as recorded in] the n
Prophets."68As one preoccupied by textual symb
tory's ups and downs and determined to show (
works) how such symbols as found in classical Jew
unlocking seemingly inscrutable contemporary his
was quick to accord the rabbinic reading of the
berth alongside his simple-sense analysis of the
and "extraordinarily" repetitive biblical text.
Beyond reproducing the fruits of midrashic m
riodically offers original interpretations fashio
methods. The revelation granted Abraham aft
preted"according to the way of midrash"by inc

(67) Tanhuma,Lekh lekha g. For other rabbinic sources, see t

pological Exegesis after NahmanidesJ'/emsli Studies Quarte
ides' widespread application of this principle in his comme
enstein, Perceptionsenstein, Perceptions ofJewish History (Los Angeles: Uni

examples of Abarbanel's favorable appraisals of rabbinic typo

on on Gen. 114-15,on Genesis 2-3;!fei.1Q3,on Gen 12:10; !toi.
Gen 33:1-15 (where he indicates that rabbinic exegesis has
tential of the narratives involvingjacob's and Esau's interactio
gagement in typology (of sorts) wherein the standard rabbini
cestors . . ."is invoked, see ibid.^1^,on Gen 28:11. In light of th
rabbinic typological readings just noted and this last example
ing the Temple, one cannot easily accept that Abarbanel's
related typological reading of Genesis 26 slightly earlier in hi
cf. for the object of the criticism Perushei ha-torah, 1:152) h
garding typological interpretation per se (Saperstein,"Typo
case, which is a wholly local reaction, it is not Nahmanidean
interpretation which is the irritant but its apparent cause. W
cessor's failure to uncover the consequential nature of the te
(Nahmanides notwithstanding) the"great honor"that it does
further implication that this failure is what engendered his t
cited above, Abarbanel might well have welcomed Nahmanide
unoffensive) had it served as a supplement to rather than re
interpretation.interpretation. Hence, Saperstein's conclusion that the
"limit the typological interpretation to narrative passages th
function" (ibid) would seem to be unfounded. That having be
tematic study of Abarbanel's attitude towards typology is in o
(68) Comm.on Num., 29.
(69) See, e.g.,"Inheritance','301-5.
 126 ERIC LAWEE [20]

ply amalgamating midras

larly, as regards the sacr
high priest, Abarbanel no
atonement for Aaron's role
the significance of the ra
then undertakes to make
viewing [the sacrifices] in
tinct hermeneutic mode w

Three "Ways of Midrash"

The ways of midrash were many: sensitivity to unexpected asym

adjacent biblical verses as in the midrash concerning the first h
position of a secondary meaning on a common word73 and elabo
a biblical speaker's obscure or ostensibly elliptical utterance74 as
rashic reconstruction of Pharaoh's warning to Moses; the assum
biblical figures knew the future]5 as in rabbinic dicta concerning th
offerings, and so on!6 Throughout his commentaries, Abarbanel
variously to these midrashic propositions and propensities, main
terposing his contextual interpretations to midrashic ones, at t
itly but more often tacitly. A systematic survey of Abarbanel's resp
few typical rabbinic interpretive habits throws further light on th
of his reactions to midrash.

PLEONASM

Owing to their belief in Scripture's uniqueness as the produ

elation, the sages assumed that nothing in the Bible was un
titious and that the biblical text lacked embellishment: each nuance — be it

in letter, word, verse, or pericope — possessed independent significance as an

instrument of divine instruction!7 The well-known consequence of this as
sumption was that midrashim were typically spurred by ever-so-slight "sur

(7<‫ )נ‬Comm.on Gen. 232-33,011 Gen 18:1-10.

(71) Comm. onExod. 287,on Exod 2g:1-2.
(72) Additional examples occur in Comm.onDeut.^f,?,,on Deut 34:8 and Comm.onJudg. 141
42, on Judges 17-21.
(73) Heinemann,Darkhei ha-'aggadah, 120-22.
(74) Ibid.,23-25;James L.Kugel,In Potiphar's House (San Francisco: Harper, 1990)4; Joseph
Heinemann, 'Aggadot ve-toldotehen, 9-10.
(75) Heinemann,Darkhei ha-aggadah,40-41.
(76) See ibid., 275-76, for a list of "aggadic ways."
(77) Ibid., 96.
[21] THE "WAYS OF MIDRASH127 "

face irregularities "78in the biblical text: appare

additions or omissions, and so forth, all served as
ply their midrashic wares.
The midrashic outlook was not accepted fully
egetes. Andalusian commentators especially, an
enced, treated Scripture as a text which at times r
of human discourse. In this view, some of Scriptur
were to be understood as stylistic or rhetorical
phasis, clarity, pathos, or the like in the manner o
particulars, however, there was room for disag
school and, indeed, within individual families o
Andalusian-born Joseph Kimhi had, as reported by
Jeremiah's "the Temple of the Lord, the Temple
the Lord (Jeremiah 7:4)"with reference to the T
hekhal,hekhal, devir), the younger Kimhi ventured th
emphasis," noting that it was "usual for Scripture t
times to stress a point'.'79Abarbanel's way of readi
more akin to that of the sages: in general, he too
that lacked embellishment and hence whose see
and"parallel" formulations presented difficulties t
duced to a"general stylistic or formal principle."80
producing the elder Kimhi's reading of Jer 7:4 as
without attribution),81 Abarbanel observes that
stand the repetition as being stricdy "for the sake
If not typically inclined towards stylistic exegesi
Abarbanel was rarely comfortable with rabbinic
less biblical pleonasm either. Rashi had already
ous case in the opening phrase of Gen 23:1 — "
hundred years and twenty years and seven ye
rashic response that "the word'years'is written aft
each should be expounded by itself [as a comple
she was as a woman of twenty as regards sin ; for j
gard her as being without sin . . . so too at one h
was as seven with regard to beauty."83 David Kimh

(78) For this term,see Kugel,"Two Introductions," 144.

(79) Commentaries to Jer 7:4 as cited in Talmage, Kimhi, 10
(80) James L. Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry (New Haven : Y
(81) See above,n.61.
(82) Comm.onjer.,327.
(83) Perushei Rashi 'al ha-torah, 83.
 128 ERIC LAWEE [22]

three times where one time would have sufficed. . . . This is a form of ele

gant gant expression (derekh sahot)8* in the Holy Tongue."8:jOn the hermeneutic is
sue, Abarbanel sides with Rashi and the sages — "though it occurs often that
the word'years'follows each numerical component [of an age] I think this
separation is always for some purpose"86— but his interpretation in this case
stands at a clear remove from the rabbinic rendering. First, it remains within
the biological framework of Sarah's life. Second, it draws inspiration from
teachings of the Muslim physician Avicenna. And third and most notably, it
eschews textually baseless eulogizing of the beauty and moral superiority of
Israel's first matriarch. In Abarbanel's view, the threefold repetition of "years"
suggests that

Sarah's "youth" lasted a hundred years since she bore and nursed Isaac
at the age of ninety and then raised him so until a hundred years she
was like a young woman with respect to her activities. The twenty years
following were years of old age (shenot ha-ziqnah) in which her strength
remained. The last seven years were days of advanced old-age (yemei ha
yeshishut).yeshishut).yeshishut). These are the stages of a human being's life mentioned by
Avicenna.87

Here and elsewhere like the midrashists of old, Abarbanel sees significance
in the repetitions of the word "years." What these repetitions signify is an
other matter entirely.
NARRATIVE EXPANSIONS

The rabbinic sages often created "exegetical narrati

inging "background details, conversations, or even whol
openly stated in a [biblical] narrative text!'88Abarbanel
without registering any dissent :"the sages said that O
16:1) bowed out of the controversy on the advice of hi
tioned other words of reproach issued by Korach ag
he asserts that the elaborations are "correct"or"well

(84) On the term "sahot"see Kugel, Idea, 174 n. 4.

(85) PerusheiDavid Kimhi, 125.
(86) Comm. on Gen., 279.
(87) Ibid. For the terminology of aging invoked here see Frank T
ber Our Days: A Theology of Longevity in Jewish Exegetical Liter
Medieval Europe, M\cha.e\Medieval Europe, M\cha.e\Medieval Europe, M\cha.e\ M. Sheehan (ed.) (Toron

J99°) 49-62 (esp. 61 n.2g).

(88) Kugel, Potiphar's House, 4 (and for the term "narrative expa
use, ibid., 4-5).
(89) Comm.on Num.88,on Num 16:1,16:3.
(90) Comm.on Gen.355,on Gen 35:8; Comm.on/0sA.7g,onJosh
[23] THE "WAYS OF MIDRASH12 "g

occasions, he tries to locate their textual ground :"

man separated from Eve, his wife, until Lamech's
and then he returned to conjugal relations with
ment 'And Adam knew Eve his wife'attests the tru
evidence proves elusive, he may seek explanati
"the sages said that the donkey [of Balaam] wh
that this should be so since when it spoke, of n
transformed and its nature as a donkey passed awa
When forced to fall back on supplementary rabb
Scripture's peshat, Abarbanel usually seems ill a
"very cryptic"song of Lamech (Gen 4:23-24) h
explicate it well except in the way that the sage
the story of Lamech's inadvertent murder of hi
in rabbinic sources, interpreting the apocopated ut
accordingly.93 A modern scholar has enumerated r
"narrative expansion" was attractive to early bi
thing, it solved significant exegetical problems:
anonymous"man"(Gen 4:23) whom Lamech had
solved a potentially disturbing dilemma: had Ca
dering his brother, been allowed to live and die
vention of later biblical law?94Abarbanel may well
account of Cain's end agreeable for these reaso
numerous historical sources rarely and in some
Hebrew writers and having a marked interest in c
Jewish historical sources,95 he no doubt appreci
which he had found a parallel in "Roman book
traced to Joseph us:'6 Still and all, though he admi
opaque and implies that the midrash is fitting
turbed by his reliance on an extraneous rabbin
of Holy Writ. His remark about the impossibilit
song "well" without rabbinic assistance is telling
bring himself to admit that the song is complet
interpret it,just not well — without rabbinic aid.9

(gi) Comm. on Gen. 131,011 Gen 4:25.

(92) Comm. on Num. 119, on Num 22:35.
(93) Comm. on Gen., 130-31.
(94) Kugel, Potiphar's House, 159-62.
(95) See my article as cited above, n. 49,311-17.
(96) Comm. on Gen., 130.
(97) Similar ambivalence towards supplementary midrash
banel's parsing of Genesis 29-30. Here the exegetical challe
the utterances made by Leah and Rachel in association with t
 130 ERIC LAWEE [24]

Abarbanel's rejections of or ef
rashic supplementations are m
fers no theological return. He
manides — that the midrash acc
his daughter following his ill-ad
peshat.peshat. In truth, she was re
monastery whence Edom and i
the idea?9 Regarding the pres
Deborah at the time of the latte
to him from the Narbonnese r
cause Rebecca promised Jacob
(Gen 26:45),' she sent Deborah
ney."100 But though Nahmanide
have made her elderly former w
banel grants initially that"we ar
to understand the wet-nurse's
ever, he then advances Nahman
becca she returned home to her
Jacob to visit her mistress."102
midrash is not needed after all.

In sum, Abarbanel generally strove to keep simple-sense interpretations

free of midrashic supplementation. He happily endorsed the midrashic un
derstanding of Pharaoh's reference to "evil"— but only because his simple
sense interpretation did not depend on it.

maidens' children without presupposing, like midrashic accounts, matriarchal foreknowledge

of a full complement of twelve children who would eventually father the twelve tribes of Israel.
Though he does not exactly seem resigned in the face of reliance upon these accounts, neither
is Abarbanel eager to admit it and hence, he declares the truth of the rabbinic supposition
(ibid.,(ibid.,(ibid.,326 and,for a specific instance, 327, on Gen 30:24),claims, at first tentatively, then more
assuredly a textual basis for it (325 on Gen 29:34 an<^ 326)> and occasionally presupposes it in his
interpretations of individual matriarchal expressions (325, 327, on Gen 30:9, 30:24). Yet no
where does Abarbanel state unqualifiedly that the background supplied by midrashic sources
is indispensable for making sense of the verses — and this despite his clearly favorable attitude
towards the idea that the twelve tribes and their divisions into four standards was envisaged at
the embryonic stages of Jewish history.
(98) E.g.,7a'arat 4a.
(99) Comm. on Jud. 130, on Judg 11:36-40. Cf. Nahmanides, Perushei ha-torah, 2:193, on Lev
27:29 versus Kimhi, as in Michael Celniker, The Commentary of Rabbi David Kimhi on the Book of
Judges Judges Judges (Toronto: Rabbi Dr. M. Celniker Book Committee, 1983) 130-31, on Judg 11:31.
(100) Perushei Rashi 'alha-torah 127,on Gen 35:8.
(101) Perushei ha-torah, 1:1g5,on Gen 35:8.
(102) Comm. on Gen. 355, on Gen 35:8.Cp. Nahmanides, Perushei ha-torah, 1:195, on Gen 35:8.
 [25] THE "WAYS OF MIDRASH" lgl

NAMES AND IDENTIFICATIONS

One of the ways that midrashim brought"focus"to biblic

naming anonymous biblical figures therein, identifyin
biblical figures with known scriptural personages, and
lical precedents, deriving insights from the name-etymo
ures.103 Medieval writers could find such preoccupation w
cessive and overly speculative. Regarding appellations
Kimhi noted the "many midrashim"on them, then a
pound them all, no book could contain them. We kno
written, for all these names are related to things kno
This is indicated with some of these names and we are not to seek those for

which we have no information'.'104 For his part, Abarbanel was more open to
midrashic operations surrounding names. He accepts that Lamech's daugh
ter Naamah was Noah's wife and that she was so called "because her deeds

were pleasant (ne'irnim)" 105although he posits that it was not through this wif
that Noah repopulated the world following the flood since if so,"the [pop
lation of the entire] world would descend from the seed of Cain on her side."
Here as elsewhere,a theological concern may be surmised : the identificatio
and name-etymology are fine as long as they do not taint the universal post
diluvian bloodline. As for derivation of insights from biblical names, Aba
banel readily engaged in this without rabbinic prompting.106
Name-etymologies, as they generally had no bearing on the peshat, wer
one thing. Identifying unnamed biblical figures was another. Abarbanel ge
erally rejects rabbinic identifications of biblical figures on either exege
tical107or non-exegetical grounds.108 He tacidy mitigates what he apparently
regards as an unacceptable midrashic stretch regarding the identity of
Phinehas' maternal grandfather Putiel (Exod 6:25), combining Nahmani
des' explicidy "simple-sense" explanation that the obscure personage wa

(1c>3) Heinemann, Darkhei ha-'aggadah, 28-29,110-12.

(104) On 1 Chron 2:55,as cited in Talmage,KmA1,110.
(105) Comm. on Gen. 130,on Gen 4:22.Cf. Gen.Rab. 23:3.
(106) Comm. on Gen. 129-30, on Gen 4:18-22; Comm. on Ezek., 433-34.
(107) E.g., Comm. on Num. 135, on Num 27:3 (Zelophehad); Comm. on Zech. 205,on Zech 3:8
(Zerubbabel).
(108) E.g., Comm. onExod.9,on Exod 2:1 (implicitly, regarding Keturah as Hagar; cp.Hein
m?1nn, Darkheim?1nn, Darkhei ha-'aggadah, 29); Comm. on Josh. 21,35, on Josh 2:1,6:21-22 (implicitly, regarding

the spies sent byjoshua as Caleb and Phinehas; cp. Heinemann, Darkhei ha-'aggadah, 28). Comm
on Sam.on Sam.on Sam. 193,on 1 Sam 4:12 (regarding Saul as the" man of Benjamin"). When,however, Abarban
records records identifications without comment(e.g., Comm. on Ags.619,624, on 2 Kgs5:1,7:3),he leav
the impression that he accepts them.
 132 ERIC LAWEE [26]

mentioned since he was"hon

binic conclusions based on n
dent both of Joseph and Jeth
a a descendent of Joseph or Je
Abarbanel's response to cha
names and identifications co
rashim concerning the midw
had named the women in qu
late these unknown persona
midrashic assumption that S
rather than identities!10Rash

"Shifrah" [is Moses' mothe

would primp (meshaperet) th
cause she would call aloud ..
ify a crying infant as,"I wi
1"".(42:14

Whether or not Rashi understood these identifications to reflect Scripture's

peshatpeshat is a moot point.112 For Abarbanel, at any rate, difficulties remained. For
instance, how could only two midwives have serviced the multitudinous chil
dren of Israel?:

One cannot say that these two were the chiefs of all the midwives as the
commentators suggest113 since then Scripture ought to have referred to
them as the chiefs of the midwives as [it refers to] the "chief of the but
lers" (Gen 40:2 ). . . . Besides, how would it help for Pharaoh to issue his
decree concerning this to these chiefs, especially as he did not order
them to transmit the order to the midwives under them?114

(log) Comm.onExod.go.Cp.Nahmanides, Perushei ha-torah, 1:308,on Exod 6:23.Cf.Soto43a.

In his aforementioned two-tiered interpretation of Genesis 18, Abarbanel adopts the rabbinic
identification of "the youth"of Gen 18:7 with Ishmael when explaining according to"the method
of midrash" but omits it when elucidating the simple sense. Comm. on Gen., 233, 237. Cf. Gen.
Rab.Rab.Rab. 48:13.

(110) Heinemann,DarM« ha-'aggadah,2(j.

(111) Perushei Rashi 'al ha-torah, 176, on Exod 1:15. Cf. Soto 11 b and Exod. Rab. 1:13 where both
the opinion cited by Rashi and an alternate view that the midwives were Yocheved and Elisheva
(Aaron's wife) are mentioned.
(112) Yonatan Cohen,"La-meyalledot ha-'ivriyyot"Leshonenu55(1991)295-97.
(113) Cp. Abraham ibn Ezra, Perushei ha-torah, 2:11, on Exod 1:15.
(114) Comm. on Exod. 7, on Exod 1:15.
 [27] the "ways of midrash" 133

Abarbanel's denial that Pharaoh had promu

alone implied in and of itself an inability t
cation of Shifrah and Puah unmodified, but Abarbanel had a more decisive
objection to this identification: how could Pharaoh have trusted Hebrew
women to kill their own? His conclusion that the midwives must have been

"Egyptians who delivered the Israelites"(with"meyalkdot ha-ivriyyot"under

stood as"midwives to the Hebrew women" rather than"Hebrew midwives")115
ruled out their being Yocheved and Miriam categorically.
While, however, abandoning the midrash's identification of the midwives,
Abarbanel incorporates rabbinic name-etymologies into his simple-sense in
terpretation. Anticipating the observation of a modern scholar that the bib
lical reference to Shifra and Puah "tempts one to suggest that the text may
be referring to an obstetrical and gynecological team"116Abarbanel indicates
that Shifrah and Puah are not names but occupations. His explanation of
"shifrah""shifrah""shifrah"reads like Rashi's with a significant modification : "the common prac
tice in Egypt was for two midwives to come to stand by any woman giving
birth, one of whom would be occupied with extracting and caring for the
newborn. . . [and] was therefore called [the] 'shifrah'because she would primp
the babe." The second midwife's occupation, according to Abarbanel, was
with mother, not baby. Rashi's recapitulation of the rabbinic etymology is
reworked accordingly: this woman"would comfort the one giving birth, en
couraging her with words, cries, and prayers [and]. . . was therefore called
[the] 'pu ah'as in'I will cry {'ef'eh)like a travailing woman'."Resolving all prob
lems of exegesis, logistics, and intelligibility in one fell swoop, Abarbanel ex
plains that Pharaoh spoke to all midwives of the Hebrews, not two, that his au
dience was divided into two specialties," the name of the one being shifrah and
the name of the second beingpu'ah" and that though the midwives were not
Hebrews but Egyptians they nonetheless "feared God" (a rationale hardly
needed for their civil disobedience were they Israelites saving their own).117
As in so many circumstances, theological concerns could mediate Abar
banel's response to rabbinic identifications as well. His ready acceptance of
the identification of "Melchizedek king of Salem (Gen 14:18)" with Noah's son
Shem (and of Salem with Jerusalem)118 is in keeping with that of Rashi who
imparted the midrashic view twice in his commentary, the first time while

(115) Ibid.For this as Rashi's likely view as well, see Cohen,"La-meyalledot;297 ' (and, for ear
lier sources to this effect, ibid., 296).
(116) H. Rand,"Figure-Vases in Ancient Egypt and Hebrew Midwives," Israel Exploration Jour
nalnalnal 20(1970)209.

(117) Comm.onExod., 7.
(118) For the former, see e.g.,Nedarim 32b. For the latter, Targum Onqelos and Targum Pseudo
 134 ERIC LAWEE [28]

explaining "And the Canaa

gradually conquering the l
fallen to the share of Shem
sons as it is said, And Mel
terpretation of Gen 14:18
ture of the identification
that he is identical with Sh
five according to the pesh
holy land to Shem seemed
nalistic fifteenth-century
rash's severest medieval ra
correct to say that it [the h
border of the Canaanite [w
Sodom . . . (Gen 10:19)'"sin
we find always that the la
progeny."122 Dismissing wh
based line of interpretatio
who told you that Melchi
was Jerusalem?"
On exegetical grounds alon
missal too quick by half. H
ite king-priest blessed Abra
heaven and earth (Gen 14:
was "Shem son of Noah, a m
resolved. Earlier in his comm
the identification as well :

As Rashi wrote, that land [Israel] fell to the share of Shem and the Ca
naanites girded themselves then to conquer a part of it. It appears, how

Jonathan Jonathan ad.loc. For pre-rabbinic interpretation, see Claudio Gianotto, "La figura di Melchi
sedek nelle tradizioni giudaica, cristiana e gnostica (sec.II a.C.-III d.C)"Annali distoria dell'ese
gesigesigesi 1(1984)137-52.

(119) Perushei Rashi 'al ha-torah, .y6.

(120) Ibid., 53. Cases where Rashi stresses the midrashic nature of interpretations without
offering a simple-sense alternative are noted by Kamin (Rashi, 147 n. 117) without elaboration.
(121) See in general Joseph Perles,"Ahron ben Gerson Aboulrabi," Rame des études juives 21
(1890)246-69 (and for a sampling of midrashic criticism, pp. 254-58). For the date of his su
percommentary,percommentary, see Joseph Hacker, "Links Between Spanish Jewry and Palestine, ]391-1492)
Vision Vision and Conflict in the Holy Land, Richard I. Cohen (ed.) (New York : St. Martin's, 1985) 134 n. 42
(where Perles' surmise of 1420 is shown to be flawed). On the work's first (and only) printing,
see Abraham Yuan, Ha-defus ha-ivri be-qushta (Jerusalem : Magnes, 1967) 86.
( 12 2 ) As in Perushim le-Rashi (Constantinople, n.d. ; photo-offset New York, 1990), on Gen 12:6.
(123) Comm.on Gen. 199, on Gen 14:18.
 [2g] the "ways of midrash" 135

ever, that Jerusalem did not fall into their

of Melchizedek — who was a descendant of Shem son of Noah or he

[Shem] himself, as their [the sages'] words would have it.124

The exegetical usefulness of the midrashic identifications of Melchized

with Shem and Salem with Jerusalem notwithstanding, one might still w
der at Abarbanel's ready acceptance of them and the complete absence
his characteristically skeptical attitude towards such rabbinic expositio
were it not for their manifold non-exegetical advantages. First, the ident
cations bolstered the Jewish people's primordial connection with the Ho
Land and Jerusalem (now linked with Shem son of Noah to whom"all of t
descendants of Eber [Gen 10:21]" including Abraham, the father of the
brew nation, traced their ancestry).Then again, they established Jerusalem a
a site of pure divine worship from an early time.125 What is more, they place
the later Israelite occupation of Canaan in a new light, turning what appeare
to be a war of conquest against an indigenous population into the reest
lishment of ajewish presence in the land long ago bequeathed to their ea
liest post-diluvian ancestor. Finally, though he does not so much as allude to
it, Abarbanel was almost certainly aware of an alternate reading of the e
of Gen 12:6 (hinted at by Abraham ibn Ezra and articulated and defende
openly by one of his supercommentators) whose theological implicatio
were, from his point of view, disastrous. On this reading the"then"of Gen 12
could only be understood if one assumed that it had not been written b
Moses.126 That Abarbanel would hardly have viewed this possibility with equ
nimity is evident from his discussion of alleged post-Mosaisms elsewhere
the Pentateuch!27 Faced with this disturbing possibility, Abarbanel was g
to read the end of Gen 12:6 as did Rashi (and as ibn Ezra had mentione
was a possibility) — namely, that "the Canaanite was then in the land" meant
that Canaanites were already in the land by the time of Abraham's arri
there, having conquered Canaan from others, to wit Shem and his offspring
The sages had their own reasons for identifying Melchizedek with Shem : to
link the generation of the flood with that of Abraham, perhaps, or as in the
case of other such identifications, simply to breath life into biblical figu

(124) Ibid., 192, on Gen 12:6.

(125) See Nahum M.Sarna, Understanding Genesis (New York: Schocken, 1970) 117.
(126) See Joseph Tov Elem, Safenat pa'neah, 2 vols., David Herzog (ed.) (Heidelberg, 1911
1:91-92. For discussion see Nahum M.Sarna,"The Modern Study of the Bible in the Framewor
of Jewish Studies" Proceedings of the EighthWorld Congress ofjewish Studies :Bible and Hebrew Language of Jewish Studies" Proceedings of the EighthWorld Congress ofjewish Studies :Bible and Hebrew Language of Jewish Studies" Proceedings of the EighthWorld Congress ofjewish Studies :Bible and Hebrew Language

(Jerusalem, 1983) 22-23;Jon D.Levenson,"The Eighth Principle of Judaism and the Literary
Simultaneity of Scripture','Journal of Religion 68(1g88) 209-13.
(127) E.g.,Comm. on Num. 108-9,on Num 21:1-3.
 136 ERIC LAWEE [30]

who were otherwise destined

the reader on the basis of the
different combination of ex
the midrashic identification
interpretations of Holy Writ.

Exposition of Exegetical Midrashim

His occasionally detailed treatments of midrashim as objects w

pretation in their own right are also telling of the warm welc
banel often extended to rabbinic interpretations in his com
rashim concerning creation,"demons" begotten by the first m
the generation of the"tower of Babef'and the donkey saddl
Moses'comportment at the burning bush, the prophetic c
aam, and more129couId all serve as points of departure for
logically searching biblical exegesis which Abarbanel prized
Abarbanel's midrashic exegeses at times display his own ca
tive homiletics that, in midrashic fashion, instruct as they en
ample must suffice.
Abarbanel explains Moses' contentment to dwell with th
daughters he had saved from villainous shepherds in terms
cernment and knowledge (Ps 119:66)" that he found in Jethro.
to maintain a connection with him due to his wisdom and this is what it

means when it says'Moses was content to dwell with him(Exod 2:21 ).'13
sages alluded to this idea when they said that "the rod of the God was plan
in the orchard of Jethro and no one was able to move it from its pla
cept Moses and that it was for this reason that he gave his daughter, Z
rah, to him as a wife":

They meant to refer to the "tree of life in the midst of the garden (Gen
2:9)" which is a figurative expression (melisah) for the wisdom of Moses
by virtue of which he merited prophecy. The "rod "of this knowledge w
planted in the"orchard,"i.e.,Jethro's heart,and no man was able to tak
it from there except Moses. With it he performed the signs and mir
cles [in Egypt], For this reason "Moses was content to dwell" with Jethro
and Jethro "gave Moses Zipporah, his daughter" (Exod 2:21) for a wif
due to his [Moses'] wisdom.131

(128) Heinemann, Darkhei ha-'aggadah, 29.

(129) Comm.on Gen., 78,135,177,269-70; Comm.onExod., 28-29; Comm. onDeut.,%54-
(130) Comm.onExod., 16.
(131) Ibid. For the original midrash, see Heinemann ,Darkhei ha-'aggadah, 30-31 ; Louis G
berg, The Legends of thejews, 7 vols. (Philadelphia :Jewish Publication Society, 1938-80)5:41
[31] THE "WAYS OF MIDRASH137 "

Its elusive imagery made transparent, the midrash

tention that Moses remained with Jethro on accou
daughter, and reveals why Moses was chosen to lea
Concluding, Abarbanel offers a" midrash" of his
they [Jethro and Moses] are called'friends {re'iinja
of the other's ('ish le-re'ehu) welfare (Exod 18:7).'"1
to a shared love of wisdom and admiration for
Jethro and Moses were "friends." This casual co
hyperliteral reading of "re'ehu" in Exod 18:7 (an
teaching in the Ethics, a work well-known to Abar
ship is the friendship of good people similar in
far Abarbanel has drifted from biblical commenta
such digression itself being typical of classical rab
A seemingly straightforward verse in Exodus 2
for an engaging mini-sermon which alights on a h
ing prophecy's prerequisites, the miracles in Egy
friendship. The illuminating diversion complet
running commentary on the biblical text.

Interweaving of Midrashic Motifs

The regular interweaving of rabbinic dicta into his exeget

other, rather different facet of Abarbanel's interaction wit
deserves mention. Rabbinic sayings and motifs are included
way that creates a layered literary tapestry comprising biblical
source, and Abarbanel's words, thereby leaving the impre
banel's interpretations are firmly rooted in classical Jewish
rashic interlacings usually provide mere literary flourish or
forcement of a motif (e.g., Moses and Aaron could have drawn
rock simply by speaking to it"in accordance with their [the sag
that tells the oil to burn will tell vinegar to burn'")134 but the
grow into a steady stream, as in this non-literal rendering of t
ing of first-fruits"of Leviticus 2:

A man should try to beat and destroy his evil inclination

said: "My son, if this repulsive wretch meets you, drag him t

(132) Comm.onExod., 16.

(133) NicomacheanEthics 1156b6.
(134) Comm.onNum. 100, on Num 20:8 (cf. Ta'anit 28a).Cp. Comm. on Lev.
ing the rabbinic view that "the evil inclination precedes the good inclination
teen years"; cf. Eccl. Rab. 4:13) ; Comm. on Num. 79, on Num 15:26 (citing the ta
 138 ERIC LAWEE [32]

hall. . . ." [And the verse hints

[the evil inclination] comple
ment and building of the w
not for the evil inclination
woman!'135
Summary and Conclusions

The term "midrash" was not nearly so "slippery and vague" to A

has become to modern scholars :136it was to him, essentially, th
the rabbinic hermeneutic (though on rare occasion Abarbanel
original medieval interpretations as being"in the manner of d
Given Abarbanel's understanding of the exegete's primary t
vey peshat — and the fact that Abarbanel generally found m
pretations to diverge from the simple sense, it is little wonder t
ceptance of rabbinic views, methods, and motifs is not the rule
commentaries. It was "evil and bitter "to Abarbanel that Rashi had contented
himself in his biblical commentaries"in most matters with that which the rab

binic sages expounded"even as "his eminence"could also serve as a bulwark

against midrashic encroachment:

Rashi wrote:"I have seen many homiletical expositions concerning the

verses . . . which do not fit the grammar of the words or the order of
the verses!' Truly, the words of the rabbi are correct with respect to the
method of midrashic homily (ke-fi derekh midrash ha-haggadah ) !38 A nd his
eminence [Rashi] emboldened himself to disagree with them [the sages]
in this place; for so a good and upstanding exegete ought to do being
as their words, may they be blessed, were [said] by way of affinity (haska
mah)[mah)[mah)[with the biblical text] — i.e., they would use the verses as a fulcrum
for the expression of their [preconceived] opinions (somkhim sippurei de
'otehem'otehem la-khetuvim) but only in the manner of a peg (derekh !asmakhta).
Accordingly, the rabbi [Rashi] imbued within us [the principle] that the
derash should be expounded and the verse settled according to its peshat!39

"proselytes are as bad for Israel as a scab"; cf. Qiddushin 70b).

(135) Comm. on Lev. 28, on Lev 2:14-16. For the rabbinic references, see Sukkah 52b and Gen.
Rab.Rab.Rab. 9:7.Rab. 9:7.

(136) Shaye J. D.Cohen, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987)
205.
(137) E.g., contra Kimhi in Comm. on Josh. 65,011 Josh 13:22.
(138) Though the ke-fi rendered here by "with respect to" is difficult.it must be deemed cor
rect based on its appearence in the apograph in the Real Monasterio de San Lorenzo de ElEscorial
(Escorial MS G-I-11,116r).
( 139) Comm. on Isa. 141, on Isa 26:7. For"ha-derash yidaresh veha-miqrayityashev 'al peshuto','
[33] THE "WAYS OF MIDRASH139 "

The "good and upstanding "exegete should explic

principal capacity, he will usually omit or reject
even inimical to his primary aim. Abarbanel here
crepancy between midrashic exposition and sim
occasion surprise since the sages never intende
explications of Scripture in the first place (a point
by a leading student of midrash just as it had b
medieval predecessors).140 Based on the foregoi
this denial of midrash's exegetical function hard
of Abarbanel's understanding of midrash's essen
Abarbanel at times incorporated midrashim as
pie sense and at other times rejected them for the
Signs of Abarbanel, the pashtan, are ubiquitou
instance, in his rejection of rationally and theo
shim, avoidance of reliance on textually tenuou
sions, and eschewal of most midrashic identifica
— all this, at times, in notably vivid terms ("very
dently weak"). Often, as with the midrashim o
herbage ,"Abarbanel spells out what he deems m
midrash. No less frequently, though, he spurns
tion ( " this is the opinion of the derash . . . but it i
the verses' peshaf')}41 Such dismissals make Abarba
midrashim among well-known medieval Hebrew
beit not the harshest!42
If, however, in terms of his main exegetical g

see Rashi's commentary to Exod 6:9. Abarbanel invokes this f

qenim,8-,Comm.onJosh.,5J;qenim,8-,Comm.onJosh.,5J; Yeshu'otmeshiho [Kônigsb

usage the expression may not reflect a distinction between

sûmes. See Kamin, Rashi, 90.
(140) Fraenkel, Darhhei ha-aggadah, 12. For critical comm
Modern Study of Ancient Rabbinic Literature : Yonah Fraenk
ProoftextsProoftexts 14( 1994) 198. For earlier medieval expressions to
Simon,"Shnei 'eqronot-yesodr 111 n. 2 and,for Shemaryah Ha
n.60) Aaron Arend,"Perush megillat 'ester le-r[abbi] Shema
Neither Abarbanel nor his predecessors envision the sages'eso
midrashim are"indeed the necessary, inevitable meaning"o
modern scholar. See David Stern ,Parables in Midrash: Narrative
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991) 68.
(141) Comm. onDeut.255,on Deut 27:14-26.
(142) To Aboulrabi (above, n. 121) should be added two oth
criticized midrash far more severely than Abarbanel, Eleazar
an anonymous supercommentator on Rashi. For the former's
Epstein,"Ma'amar 'al h i bbu r Safenatpa'neah' in KitveiR.'Avraha
140 ERIC LAWEE [34]

jected midrashic interpretation

once his quest tor peshat was s
midrashim when they invest
entailed congenial theologica
tual food for thought. Conver
ological content could garne
reconfiguration. But whatever
ology in Abarbanel's interpre
whether and in what way a m
His view that, done correctly
ological as well as exegetical
reference and recourse to mid
in their nonlegal sayings tha
that exercisedAbarbanel's th
The foregoing suggests som
Abarbanel's interaction with m
was paid to midrashim that: 1.
heart and eyes"; "air of the L
pled with and attempted to r
ings; Moses' blame of the Isr
the biblical text without, howe
ham blessed with offspring,
all three) ; 3. supplied details n
withdrawal from controversy
mech; Deborah's sojourning w
or identified biblical figures (t
in earlier commentaries, esp
tion therefore ("first herbag
ides); 5. bore the stamp of hi
trology in ancient Egypt), w
(Lamech as Cain's killer in"Ro
structure and meaning of his
interpretations of Jacob's int
All of the above amounts to s
Abarbanel was neither midrash
end, it was individual midras
gregate. If after completing
midrash reflected the peshat,

(ed.) (Jerusalem : Mossad Ha-Rav Koo

sagot ha-Rabad al perush Rashi la-to
[35] THE "WAYS OF MIDRASH141 "

mentary. And if not, as was usually the case, this wa

ther ignored it or, often enough, incorporated it
way as an authentic expression of one of the other f
he deemed it his job to relay. In some instances, i
praise of midrashic views reflects the support that t
tations ("how sweet to my palate is that which th
Behold, they hinted in a few words at the sublim
stumbled by the grace of God").143 But often, ample
serted without any apparent ulterior motive and eve
Indeed, at times Abarbanel collects and records lar
ter his own exegesis of a verse, topic, or biblical book
tuitous digests of midrash have no rationale othe
tion that the dicta in question are"pleasant, worth
necessary component of a full exposition of the in
tifaceted divine word. The result in terms of the com
those on the Pentateuch especially, are replete with m
treasure house of the choicest pearls of rabbinic and
Isaac Arama sought to offer biblical interpretat
other things, reveal the profundity of midrashim "w
than fine gold" but which, being but"chapter head
gation'.'148 Abarbanel was of a similar mind. If it was
"essential"but rather "the true peshat" then it was al
peshatpeshat alone was hardly sufficient. Heir to the A
banel agreed that midrashim should meet a demandin
being accepted as renderings oipeshat\yet in contr
unfolding trends clearly visible in Nahmanidean e
sisted that biblical commentary must go beyond simp
and relay other scriptural dimensions, theologica

(143) Comm. onDeut.341 ,on Deut 34:1-4. For more examples, us

"u-maskim"u-maskim le-zeh"or the equivalent, see ibid. 317, on Deuteron
177, on Gen 2:18, 2:19,3:22,11:1-9■
(144) E.g., at the end of the discussion of the commandmen
cornered garment (Comm. on Num 85-86, on Num 14:37-41). H
of midrashic sources cited (Sifrei to Numbers, the two Talmuds, Mi
(145) E.g., Comm. on Num.S-g, on Numbers 2; Comm. on Sam. 17
30, 63, on Hosea 2:22,14:10.
(146) Comm. on Num. 24, on Num 6:2 2-26.
(147) Louis Rabinowitz,"Abravanel as Exegete? in Isaac Abravan
H.Loewe (eds.) [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1937] 83
Grûnberg,"Eine Leuchte" 25,who dubbed the commentaries a"
(148) Aqedat yishaq, 1 : [iv].
(149) Septimus,"Nahmanides," 19 n.30.
142 ERIC LAWEE [36]

"words of the commentators" we

were essential in their own mann
exploration of the polysemous

*I wish to thank the Social Sciences an

ous aid which enabled the writing of
structive suggestions which improved t
of the Fathers': Aspects of Isaac Abarba
MA: Harvard University, 1993 ; hereinaf
insightful suggestions and observations
James L. Kugel. I wish also to acknowled
Culture which made possible the chapte