Commentators:R. David Kimchi (Radak)/0

R. David Kimchi (Radak)

This page is a stub.
Please contact us if you would like to assist in its development.

Radak

Name	R. David Kimchi, Radak ר' דוד קמחי, רד"ק
Dates	c. 1160 – c. 1235
Location	Narbonne, Provence
Works	Commentaries on Bereshit, Nevi'im, Tehillim, Mishlei, and Divrei HaYamim, Sefer HaMikhlol and Sefer HaShorashim
Exegetical Characteristics
Influenced by	R. Yosef Kimchi, R. Moshe Kimchi, Ibn Ezra, Rambam, Ibn Janach, Ibn Chiyyug
Impacted on	Ramban, Meiri

Background

Life

• Name – Rabbi David Kimhi (רבי דוד קמחי) , acronym Radak (רד"ק)
• Dates – c.1160 – c.1235
• Location – Provence (Narbonne). Radak's family migrated from Spain to Provence in the wake of the Almohade invasion of the mid-12th century, and this Spanish legacy influenced his work substantially, as did the works of Rashi (and, to a lesser extent, those of others) composed in Northern Europe. As such, Radak's work features a relatively early fusion of Northern European and Spanish influences. Polemical components of his work reflect the influence of his Christian environment.
• Education – Bible, rabbinics, philosophy, science, philology
• Occupation – Teacher of rabbinic texts to youths
• Family – Son of R. Joseph Kimhi, brother of R. Moses Kimhi
• Teachers – His brother R. Moses Kimhi
• Contemporaries – Most notably R. Samuel ibn Tibbon of Provence, purveyor of Maimonides' Arabic works
• Time period
• Translations of Maimonides' Arabic works began circulating during the early stages of Radak's exegetical career, and the Maimonidean component of his work (along with the writings of Samuel Ibn Tibbon and others) marks the beginning of the Maimonidean-Tibbonian philosophical-exegetical tradition that flourished in 13th-century Provence and beyond. Controversy over Maimonides' thought during Radak's time culminated in his efforts to defend the philosopher, as evidenced in Radak's exchange of letters with Judah Alfakhar in 1232.
• World outlook – Maimonidean philosophy dominates Radak's thought, including, inter alia, his affirmations of creation de novo, the presence of a natural order and the limited role of miracles, and the necessity of resisting the draw of the material world in order to unite with the active intellect and achieve immortality.

Works

• Biblical commentaries – Bereshit, Former Prophets, Latter Prophets, Psalms, Proverbs, Chronicles.¹
• Grammar – Sefer Mikhlol which contains two parts: Sefer MIkhlol, a work on Biblical grammar, and Sefer HaShorashim, a Biblical lexicon.²  These were written before Radak's Biblical commentaries and served as a foundation for them. They contain explanations to dozens of verses in Tanakh,³ but also provide the grammatical knowledge necessary to understand the text. For, according to Radak, attempting to study Tanakh without a grammatical base is almost futile.⁴
• Jewish thought – letters in defense of Maimonides
• Misattributed works – Et Sofer on Masorah (according to recently adduced evidence), as well as some collections of material from the Shorashim mistaken to be independent commentaries

Tanakh Commentary

Characteristics

• Verse by verse / Topical – Radak says explicitly with regards to his commentaries on the Former Prophets, Yirmeyahu and Divrei HaYamim⁵ that he will comment only on those verses which need explanation. Despite these words, however, in practice, Radak comments on almost every verse.
• Genre – The work is an explanatory commentary with particular emphasis on grammar and lexicography and periodic discussion of matters relating to philosophy, science, theology, and ethics.
• Style – Radak's commentary is paraphrastic, often interweaving the Biblical text and commentary.
• Language – Hebrew
• Peshat and derash –  In his Introduction to Yehoshua, Radak notes that in his commentary he will deal with philology and grammar, turn to rabbinic interpretations when their authoritative explanations are necessary,⁶ and include "a few" homiletic midrashim "for lovers of derash". He implies, thus, that his emphasis will be on "peshat"⁷ while derashic interpretations will simply add occasional color to the commentary. While Radak's focus is definitely to explain the simple sense of the text, he nonetheless incorporates more midrashim into his commentary than does Rashi,⁸ often quoting them directly. More often than not, though, these are brought as a contrast to the simple sense of the verse and not as independent explanations.⁹

Methods

Introduction – Radak's exegesis synthesizes the methodologies of both the Spanish and French exegetical traditions, combining the Andalusian emphasis on philology, grammar and rationalism with the Northern French and Provencal focus on literary exegesis, realia and Rabbinic literature.

• I. Grammar and Philology – Unlike some exegetes who separate their grammatical and philological analyses from their content discussions,¹⁰ Radak combines the two, believing that one informs the other.

• Defining words – Radak will explain difficult words both by looking at their usage in Tanakh itself and by turning to Rabbinic Hebrew,¹¹ Aramaic¹² or Arabic.¹³ He will often note when a word is a hapax legomenon (occurring only once), and in such cases, might turn to the context to explain it.¹⁴  Radak will also explain more common words which might take several meanings so as to disambiguate.¹⁵  In many cases these explanations are either an abridged¹⁶ or more elaborate discussion of what he wrote in Sefer HaShorashim, but there are also definitions which were not discussed in the earlier work.
• Grammar – Radak touches on dozens of grammatical issues, noting both exceptional phenomena and those that are fairly common:
• Tenses – Radak notes that Tanakh at times employs the imperfect with the meaning of a perfect¹⁷ or the perfect with the meaning of an imperfect.¹⁸ He notes the phenomenon very often, commenting over 60 times that Tanakh employs "עבר במקום עתיד"
• Gender – Radak notes various phenomena related to gender
• He notes verses in which the gender of a noun does not appear to match its accompanying verb or adjective, sometimes noting that the specific noun actually can be either masculine or feminine¹⁹ and sometimes giving local explanations to the phenomenon.²⁰
• He notes words which have a double feminine marker, such as "יְשׁוּעָתָה", suggesting that in such cases the doubling serves as an intensifier.²¹
• He also notes androgynous verbs which combine a masculine and feminine form (ויחמנה).²²
• Person – Radak remarks on verses in which there is switch from first to second person speech and the like. He generally explains the phenomenon as being simply "the way of the text" (כן דרך הכתוב לדבר בפסוק אחד לנכח ושלא לנכח).²³
• Number – Radak will often note when there is incongruity between singular and plural, with a singular noun taking a plural modifier or vice versa.²⁴ He discusses the phenomenon in both the Mikhlol and on individual verses, noting that it is a conmon way of speech, but simultaneously asserting that one should explore the reasons for the discrepancies (ויש לתת בהם טעם למה באו כן ). He offers several explanations for the phenomenon:
• Sometimes a singular noun is a "collective noun", and thus takes a plural modifier.
• Sometimes the verse means to say "each of many" and will thus employ a singular verb, even though the verse is speaking of multiple people.
• Inversely, if the verse wants to highlight that one individual of many is the main actor, it might employ a singular verb.
• Finally, the text at times employs the "Majestic plural", speaking in plural out of respect.
• Letter reversals / exchanges –

• II. Rationalism – 
• Miracles – Radak believed in the immutability of nature, leading him to minimize the miraculous, but not to reject it.²⁵
• He, thus, asserts that, for the most part, Hashem performs miracles by utilizing rather than overturning nature,²⁶ and that Hashem will only perform miracles when necessary.²⁷
• At times he will reinterpret verses which describe miraculous phenomenon as being simply metaphors.²⁸
• Many other miracles, he suggests, were preprogrammed into creation, and so do not really constitute a change in the natural order but rather a planned exception to it.²⁹
• He further asserts that since Hashem generally runs the world via nature, the righteous do not rely on miracles.³⁰
• Anthropomorphism – Radak, following Rambam and others, asserts that any anthropomorphic language in Tanakh is simply a figure of speech. Hashem does not have body parts or feelings such as regret, sadness or happiness. When Tanakh uses such terms, it is only so humans can understand.³¹ 
• Prophecy – Radak's understanding of prophecy is heavily influenced by Rambam.  Like Rambam, he believes that prophecy is transmitted through intermediaries such as angels,³² that to attain prophecy one must prefect one's self both morally and intellectually and be free from material concerns,³³  and that there are distinct prophetic levels.³⁴
• Angels – Radak maintains that angels are not corporeal but that they can take on a human guise and appear so to humans, who imagine them to be real people.³⁵ In a couple of instances, where angels actively engage in corporeal activities which cannot be easily imagined, he suggests that the story might have taken place in a prophetic vision.³⁶
• Bizarre prophetic actions – Radak maintains that several seemingly bizarre or unrealistic prophetic actions, such as Yeshayahu's walking naked, Hoshea's marrying a prostitute, Yechezkel's eating food cooked in dung or swallowing a scroll, all merely took place in prophetic visions to serve as analogies, and did not happen in reality.³⁷
• His exegesis of philosophically-charged material, especially on the opening chapters of Genesis and Ezekiel, bespeak an effort to apply a systematic Maimonidean approach, supplemented by his own exegetical and philosophical preferences.³⁸
• III. Literary Exegesis
• "The way of the text" – Radak is very attuned to patterns in the Biblical text, often noting that a literary phenomenon or a certain formulation is simply "the way of the text"³⁹ or "דרך הלשון"‎.⁴⁰
• Doubling in Tanakh – Radak often addresses repetition and doublings  in Tanakh, both within a story or verse and between parallel stories.
• "כפל לחזק" – In contrast to the midrashic tendency to find significance in every repetition, Radak tends to explain away such doublings as being elements of Biblical style or the manner of people.  Thus, repetition might serve for emphasis⁴¹ or elaboration,⁴² to resume a narrative after a parenthetical break,⁴³ or be an expression of emotion.⁴⁴
• כפל הענין במלות שונות – Radak notes that often Tanakh employs synonymous rather than identical language when repeating an idea (כפל הענין במלות שונות), and emphasizes that this is simply the way of the text and one need not to look into the significance of the choice of each synonym.⁴⁵  As above, he maintains that the doubling is generally meant simply for emphasis: "וכפל הענין במלות שונות כמו שהוא דרך המקרא כדי לחזק הענין".‎⁴⁶ He employs the term over 165 times in his commentary! 
• "הכתוב שומר הטעמים ולא המלות" – Similarly, when analyzing parallel passages, such as the two accounts of the servant's story in Bereshit 24,  Radak belittles the significance of changes in language,⁴⁷ explaining that as long as the meaning is maintained, the choice of word is not important.⁴⁸
• Sensitivity to nuance – Despite the above reluctance to posit "omnisignificance", Radak is very attuned to the nuances of the text, and if an explanation for specific word choice or repetition accords with the context and with reason, he might adopt it.
• Metaphoric Language
• Sensitivity to literary artistry – In prophetic and poetic passages, Radak often highlights plays on words (לשון נופל על לשון), noting that these are "דרך צחות השלון" (beautifying the text).⁴⁹ He notes how Tanakh might slightly change the vocalization for aesthetic beauty, to pair it with another word.⁵⁰

•  IV. Realia
• Way of the world – Radak will often explain certain customs in light of the realia of either Biblical times,⁵¹ his own time,⁵² or the way of the world at large.⁵³
• Psychological insights – At times, Radak will provide the psychological motives behind a character's actions or people's behavior in general.⁵⁴
• Scientific knowledge – Radak might explain the narrative in light of his knowledge of the sciences, nature, or geography.⁵⁵

Themes

• Reasons for stories – Radak will often explore the didactic and theological messages relayed by Biblical narratives, questioning what can be learned by the inclusion of both specific details and entire stories.⁵⁶  Thus, Radak will often note how certain details are included to teach the reader proper behavior,⁵⁷ give insights into a person's character,⁵⁸ help one understand Hashem's ways,⁵⁹ or to relay historical messages.⁶⁰
• Psychology / Motives of Biblical figures - See above.
• Prophetic Autonomy
• Attitude towards the Masoretic text⁶¹ – 
  
  • Accuracy of the text – Radak was very interested in textual accuracy. In several places, he speaks of consulting "ספרים מדויקים" regarding a certain spelling,⁶² vocalization⁶³ or accent.⁶⁴ He will note if others, such as Targum Yonatan or Chazal, appear to be working off a different version of the text⁶⁵ or if a different book has a "mistake".⁶⁶  Often, too, he consults the works of the Masoretes,⁶⁷ noting how they read the text, and sometimes using them to prove that a certain reading must be correct.
  • קרי וכתיב – In his introduction to Yehoshua, Radak explains the phenomenon, suggesting that in exile doubts were raised regarding certain words in the text and the two versions reflect two possibilities as to the original. As such, he views both the קרי and כתיב as equally significant, and will usually explain a given verse according to both. He will sometimes suggests that the two are synonymous or grammatical variations of the same word, but when that seems unlikely, he will give two parallel explanations.
  • Variations between parallel texts – Radak tends to belittle the significance of such changes, asserting that it is the way of the text to vary its language but keep the meaning. As such he does not always explain the differences, sufficing with noting them, though at times he will nonetheless offer an exegetical reason for the variation. He does not assume that these difference are evidence of a corrupted text.
  • Name variations – In explaining parallel names with slight differences (דודנים vs. רודנים or הדר vs. הדד etc.), Radak on Divrei HaYamim I 1:7 notes that the differences often relate to similar looking letters and suggests that people used to confuse the names when reading genealogy lists, leading to both usages. According to him, these variations preceded the writing of Tanakh and do not reflect possible errors that made their way into the text. Elsewhere, he more simply suggests that perhaps a person had more than one name⁶⁸ or that the example is simply a case of letter reversals, like those found elsewhere in Tanakh as well.⁶⁹
  • Interpreting in accordance with cantillation marks – Radak does not feel that an interpretation of a verse need accord  with the cantillation marks (אין כל טעמי הפירושים הולכים אחרי טעמי הנקוד),⁷⁰ presumably viewing these as human inventions which can be accepted or rejected.

Textual Issues

• Manuscripts – five extant manuscripts of commentary on Genesis; varying numbers of manuscripts of other works
• Printings – first printings in 15th and 16th centuries, chiefly in early Rabbinic Bibles; current best editions chiefly in Bar-Ilan's Mikra'ot Gedolot Haketer
• Textual layers – several works reflect stages of revision by the author

Sources

Significant Influences

• Earlier Sources – chiefly Talmud and Midrash, Rashi, R. Abraham Ibn Ezra, R. Jonah Ibn Janah, R. Joseph Kimhi, Maimonides
• Teachers – R. Moses Kimhi

Impact

Later exegetes

Radak's Shorashim became the standard biblical lexicon for centuries; and his commentaries on the Prophets and Writings likewise became standard, heavily influencing commentators such as Abarbanel and forming the basis of others such as Metzudat David.

Supercommentaries

Editions of various commentaries are available with limited annotation, and a more expansive supercommentary is available on Chronicles.

¹ As Radak often references his earlier commentaries in later ones, one can reconstruct the order of their composition as follows: Divrei HaYamim, Tehillim, Former Prophets, Latter Prophets, and, finally, Bereshit. For some examples of his self-references see his comments on: Tehillim 78:9 (where he refers to his commentary to Divrei HaYamim), Yirmeyahu 22:11 (where he refers to his commentaries on both Divrei HaYamim and Melakhim), or Melakhim I 13:28 (where he refers to his commentary on Tehillim). See also his Introduction to Yirmeyahu where he explicitly addresses the order in which he composed the work, writing "וכן כתבתי פירושו אחר פירוש ישעיהו".  A few lines later, he compares what he plans to do in the commentary to what he had done in his commentaries to the Former Prophets (כמו שעשיתי בפירוש ד׳ ספרים הראשונים), providing clear evidence that those had been written before the commentaries to the Latter Prophets.

² The book, with its two parts (the section on grammar and the section on roots), was originally called Sefer HaMikhlol, but later publishers gave each section its own name by which they are now known.

³ See עזרא ציון צלמד "מפרשי המקרא", (ירושלים, 1978):783-788 for a full listing.

⁴ He compares it to one who attempts to plow a field with an ox but without a cattle prod: "אשר למד ותורה לו לקנין / ולא למד יסוד דקדוק ולא בן / כמו חורש אשר ינהג שוורים/ וידו בלי מלמד ודרבן" (Sefer HaMIkhlol, epilogue)

⁵ See his introductions to Divrei HaYamim and Yirmeyahu where he differentiates between his commentaries to these works and his commentary to Yeshayahu, claiming that only Yeshayahu was to be explained verse by verse.

⁶ Thus, he often includes Rabbinic interpretations that accord with peshat principles or which are otherwise seen as authoritative.

⁷ See his introduction to Divrei HaYamim as well, where he explains that one of the motivations for writing the work was that the only commentaries he found on the book were those in Narbonne who followed "the path of derash".  Here, too, he  implies that his approach will differ, and that he will approach his commentary from a "peshat" perspective.

⁸ F. Talmage, David Kimhi: The Man and the Commentaries (Massachusetts, 1974): 74, writes, "If Radak was bringing midrashim for the lovers of derash it would appear that he himself was chief among them... He did not bring all of the midrashic corpus. Yet as one peruses the commentaries, verse after verse, chapter after chapter... one almost feels that he tried to."

⁹ If, for example, one looks at Radak's commentary to Shemuel I 1, in his comments on almost every verse (1,3,4,5,6,9,11,17,18,23), Radak contrasts his own explanation with what is brought "בדרש". In the vast majority of these cases, he simply juxtaposes the two explanations without further comment.  The exceptions are his comments on verse 1, where he attempts to show how the Sages' interpretation fits with the grammar of the text, and his comments on verses 9 and 11, where he disagrees with the Midrashic explanation, showing why it is either unnecessary or not exact. Similarly, in Radak's commentary to Sefer Bereshit, out of 29 comments in which he addresses what  is relayed "בדרש", only in three cases does he question the Midrash (Bereshit 3:21, 7:7 and 14:14), in one he evaluates it as "true" (Bereshit 49:33), while in the vast majority, he simply leaves it as an alternative to his own explanation.

¹⁰ See, for example, Ralbag who has a section of his commentary entitled "פירוש המילים" and a distinct section "פירוש הענין".

¹¹ See, for example, Bereshit 26:20, 45:17, Shofetim 5:26, 7:3, 9:27, 20:38, Shemuel II 16:12, Melakhim I 1:9, Melakhim I 12:33, Melakhim II 4:16, Yeshayahu 41:21. or Yirmeyahu 42:6.  For discussion, see ניסן נצר, "תרומתו של "רד"ק לפתרון מלים מקראיות יחידאיות בצורה או בשימוש לאורה של לשון-חכמים in HUCA (1988): 1-11.

¹² In many of these cases, he is drawing off the Aramaic Targumim.  See his comments on Yeshayahu 10:34, Yeshayahu 30:30, Yechezkel 25:6 or Tehillim 38:11.

¹³ Radak often brings such explanations in the name of his father or others, and it is likely that Radak himself, having been born and lived in Narbonne,  was not particularly fluent in the language. For some examples, see Yeshayahu 1:22. 3:9, 14:19, 65:11, Yirmeyahu 3:14, 16:5, 51:32, or Hoshea 4:14.

¹⁴ Thus, he often writes "אין לו חבר במקרא...ופירושו לפי עניינו".   See, for example, Shemuel II 17:20, Yeshayahu 9:4, 11:15, 33:20, 56:10, or 66:11.  In many cases, he follows Ibn Ezra's lead in noting and explaining these words.

¹⁵ See, for example, Bereshit 26:9 and Yirmeyahu 32:30 on the meaning of the word "אך", Yirmeyahu 30:2, Yechezkel 23:42, and Yirmeyahu 4:23 on the various meanings of the word "אל", and Yeshayahu 24:10 and Tehillim 39:6 on the meaning of "כל".

¹⁶ See, for example Yirmeyahu 18:2, where he writes " וסבפר השרשים הארכתי בפירושו עוד".

¹⁷ See, for instance, Yehoshua 8:11 (where he notes that the phenomenon is particularly common after the word "אז", pointing to many similar examples, such as "אז ישיר משה"), Yehoshua 23:10, Shofetim 2:1, Shemuel I 25:28, Melakhim I 3:4,16, Melakhim II 8:29 or Yeshayahu 41:2-3.

¹⁸ See, for example, Bereshit 48:22, 49:26, Yehoshua 4:24, Shemuel II 17:!2, Yeshayahu 2:9, 46:23, Amos 9:7 and Tehillim 4:2. He notes that the phenomenon is fairly common in prophetic material, explaining "עבר במקום עתיד כדרך הנבואות במקומות רבים כי דבר ה׳ בנבואה קיים כאילו נעשה" (Yirmeyahu 23:19).  Since Hashem's prophecies are so certain to be fulfilled , it is as if they are already done and can therefore be expressed in the past tense.

¹⁹ See, for example, his comments on Bereshit 32:9, Shemuel I 4:17, Shemuel II 22:35, Yeshayahu 2:11, Yirmeyahu 2:21, Yirmeyahu 20:9,  Yechezkel 2:9 and elsewhere.

²⁰ See his comments on Shemuel I 15:9, Melakhim I 6:10, Melkahim I 22:36, Yeshayahu 14:3,

²¹ For other examples, see his comments on Yehoshua 6:17, Shemuel II 1:26, Tehillim 3:3, and Tehillim 120:1.

²² See Radak on Bereshit 30:8, Shemuel I 6:12, Yechezkel 37:7 and Yirmeyahu 49:11.

²³ For examples, see his comments on Shemuel I 19:42, Melakhim I 22:28, Yeshayahu 1:29, 33:2, 38:12, 42:20, 42:24, 48:14, Yirmeyahu 11:16, Yirmeyahu 30:8, Malakhi 2:15 and elsewhere.

²⁴ For a comprehensive discussion, see Ayelet Seidler. “בין בלשן לפרשן: יחסו של רד״ק לסוגיית ההתאמה המספרית במקרא", Hebrew Union College Annual, vol. 84–85, 2014, p. 137-158.  Much of the analysis below relies on this article.

²⁵ Thus, he maintains that the snake in the garden miraculously talked (Bereshit 3:1), the skin tunics were miraculously made for Adam and Chavvah (Bereshit 3:21) and that there really was a shamir, the worm who could split stones (Melakhim I 6:7).  Similarly, though he brings an opinion that the boys revived by Eliyahu and Elisha were simply unconscious, he prefers the possibility that they actually died and were brought back to life. [This might also be motivated by the controversy over Rambam's discussion of resurrection and a need to affirm the concept.]  So, too, though he raises the possibility that the sign of the fleece was seen by Gidon only in a prophetic dream, he prefers the option that it occurred in reality.

²⁶ See Yehoshua 5:2 where he writes, "כי אף על פי שמשנה מנהג העולם בקצת הנסים בקריעת ים סוף והירדן ועמידת השמש לא יעשה כן ברוב הנסים כי אפילו בנצוח המלחמות ועזרו לאוהביו היה עושה ע״י סבה כמנהג העולם". Thus, for instance, see Melakhim I 17:21 and Radak Melakhim II 4:31 where he shows how Eliyahu and Elisha's actions to revive the boys were an attempt to make their resurrection as natural as possible..

²⁷ See, for example, his comments on Bereshit 2:21 (regarding the necessity of putting Adam to sleep rather than miraculously easing his pain), Yehoshua 5:2 (regarding why Hashem preferred the people to delay circumcision rather than miraculously ensure their health in the wilderness),  Yehoshua 6:5 (where he suggests that only the part of the wall of Yericho, that which was necessary for the Israelite army, fell).

²⁸ See, for example, his comments on Yeshayahu 13:10, Yoel 2:10, 3:3, and Zecharya 3:2 (in contrast to the Midrash). Cf. his commentary to Yeshayahu 11:6 (וְגָר זְאֵב עִם כֶּבֶשׂ) where he maintains that the predatory nature of animals will not change in Messianic times, but for textual reasons does not read the verse as an allegory for world peace.

²⁹ See Radak Bereshit 2:1, drawing off Bereshit Rabbah 85, where he notes that already during the six days of creation Hashem commanded that the sea split, the sun stand still, the ravens feed Eliyahu, the lions not harm Daniel and that the fish save Yonah.

³⁰ See Bereshit 12:12 and Radak Shemuel I 16:2 and examples there.

³¹ Thus, he writes on Bereshit 8:1: "דברה תורה כלשון בני אדם להבין השומעים" and similarly in Bereshit 9:15: "הכל הוא דרך משל כלשון בני אדם".  See similar statements in Bereshit 1:3, 2:2, 6:6, 8:21, 11:7, Shofetim 9:13, 10:16, Yirmeyahu 14:8, Yonah 4:10, Zekharyah 7:14, 14:4, Malakhi 3:16 and Tehillim 2:4, 40:6.

³² See, for example, his comments on Yeshayahu 50:5.

³³ See his introduction to Tehillim, Yirmeyahu 1:5, Bereshit 45:27, Yeshayahu 28:9, and Yoel 1:3.

³⁴ See Radak's introduction to Tehillim where he distinguishes between "רוח הקודש" and "נבואה", .  Radak's categorization does not follow Rambam's exactly, omitting some of Rambam's levels and conflating others.

³⁵ See Bereshit 32:26 where he notes that many angels (such as the angels who speak to Yehoshua, Gidon, or Lot) appear as men to humans though they are not in fact corporeal; the appearance is only in the human's imagination.

³⁶ Thus, since Yaakov's struggle with the angel involved actual touch, and the angel was not simply a figure seen by Yaakov, Radak asserts that either the whole episode took place only in a prophetic vision or that Hashem made an exception and gave the angel a temporary human form (Bereshit 32:26). Radak also raises the possibility that all of Bereshit 18, the story of Avraham's guests, was similarly but a prophetic vision.  As he simultaneously maintains that Chapter 19 took place in reality, it seems that he is bothered not by the angels' human guise which was but an appearance, but by the fact that Avraham's guests actively ate. [On that verse, he notes that if it was not a prophetic dream one must maintain that it simply appeared that they ate, with the food miraculously disappearing.] Radak's reading of the story of "בני אלהים" consorting with "בנות האדם" to refer to the corrupt sons of judges rather than angels might similarly be motivated by the problematic of angels having relations with humans.

³⁷ See his comments on Yeshayahu 8:1, 20:23, Yechezkel 2:8, 4:4, 5:1, 8:3, 9:4, and Hoshea 1:2.

³⁸ See Shemuel I 20:19,  Melakhim I 11:27,

³⁹ See examples above regarding various grammatical phenomena, and below regarding Tanakh's tendency to repeat for emphasis or to use synonymous rather than parallel language. For other examples, see also his comments on Bereshit 25:16 (that the text will often write a general statement after including details: כלל אחר פרט), 28:10 (that it is the way of the text to mention the beginning and end of a process and leave out the details of the middle), Melakhim I 18:46 (that Tanakh will often identify the location of places, by syaing that it is "enroute to...") Yeshayahu 4:1 (that the number "seven" in Tanakh is used to denote many), and Yeshayahu 10:29 (that Tanakh will utilize synecdoche, mentioning a city when referring instead to the inhabitants of that place).

⁴⁰ See, for instance, his comments on Bereshit 23:1, where he explains the triple repetition of the word "שנה" as being a common example of literary artistry ("דרך צחות הלשון"), 43:8 (regarding the repetition the word "גם"), 45:20 (that the verb "חס", to have pity, is often paired with the word eye rather than heart).

⁴¹ See, for example, Shofetim 5:7, Melakhim I 20:33, Melakhim II 4:15, Yeshayahu 6:11, Yirmeyahu 22:29, 23:5,  Yechezkel 21:20, 39:4, Tehillim 21:7, 106:5.

⁴² See Bereshit 30:20, Yehoshua 6:18, 26, Shofetim 8:35, Melakhim II 10:6.

⁴³ See Bereshit 41:10 and examples there.

⁴⁴ See Yirmeyhau 4:19, Melakhim I 18:36 where doubling expresses distress or Yechezkel 16:6 where it serves to encourage.

⁴⁵ In this he is influenced by Ibn Ezra before him (though the terminology of "כפל הענין במלת שונות" is first used by Radak). For a few examples where Radak emphasizes how it is the way of the text to vary its language when doubling see Bereshit 20:1, 21:1, 25:23, 32:8, 43:14, and Yeshayahu 1:2, 3:1, Yirmeyahu 25:7 and many more.

⁴⁶ For examples where Radak notes this, see Bereshit 4:12, 49:26, Yeshayahu 6:11, 8:1, 10:17, 24:1, 28:5, 33:16, 54:8, Yirmeyahu 22:28, 30:13 and many more.

⁴⁷ This tendency is not limited to parallel passages.  In explaining allegories, he follows Rambam is suggesting that not every detail need have deep meaning in the explanation, as some might have been included just for literary elegance. See, for example, his comments on Mishlei 5:3.

⁴⁸ In this, too, Radak follows Ibn Ezra. For examples, see Bereshit 18:13, 24:39, ShemueI II 8:3, Yirmeyahu 6:12, 8:10.

⁴⁹ See, for example, his comments on Yeshayahu 5:7 regarding "וַיְקַו לְמִשְׁפָּט וְהִנֵּה מִשְׂפָּח לִצְדָקָה וְהִנֵּה צְעָקָה".  See also his comments on Yeshayahu  57:6, 65:11-12 (compare Ibn Ezra there), Yirmeyahu 6:1, 6:27, 48:2, 51:2, and Mikhah 1:10-15.

⁵⁰ For instance, see Shemuel II 3:25 (מוצאך and מובאך and other examples there) or Yechezkel 16:3.

⁵¹ See, for example, Bereshit4:18 and 10:13 (on the Biblical custom of naming children after events that occur), 24:67 (on living arrangements of husbands and wives), 25:34 and 31:46 (that eating a meal served to establish a treaty), 34:20 (regarding the role of the "city gate"), 38:4 (on which parent names a child), and 38:8 (on levirate marriage in the patriarchal period).

⁵² See Bereshit 23:6 (regarding burial practices), Shemeuel I 20:19 (concerning not working on the enew moon), Melakhim I 11:27 (on kings making escape routes),

⁵³ See, for example, Bereshit 5:3, 24:61, 27:1, 27:4, 27:25, 29:4, 29:22, 40:16, 41:9, 47:7 or 49:10, Melakhim II 21:13, Yeshayahu 8:20, 60:11, Yirmeyhau 4:2, 31:4, Tehillim 31:11,  Malakhi 2:14

⁵⁴ See, for example, Bereshit 25:28 regarding why each of Rivka and Yitzchak preferred the son that they did, Hoshea 7:10 on the tendency of the elderly to repent, Tehillim 35:14, on the relative pain of losing a mother versus a father, or Yeshayahu 47:1 on the association between weakness and a life of pleasure.

⁵⁵ In many comments he speaks of animal behavior. See, for example, Bereshit 8:7 (explaining Noach's choice to send a raven and dove specifically),Yirmeyahu (on the migration patterns of storks), Hoshea 13:8 (regarding bears' attachment to their young), Mikhah 1:15 (regarding eagles). Elsewhere, he speaks about the working of the body; see Bereshit 49:12,  Tehillim 102:5 and 139:14. He touches on geographical knowledge in Yechezkel 47:9, 26:14, Amos 9:3 and botany in Chagai 2:19 and Yeshayahu 18:5.

⁵⁶ See, for example, Bereshit 9:20 (regarding the inclusion of the story of Noach's drunkenness, brought to teach both about the evils of wine and to give background about the Canaan's cursed status), Bereshit 19:32 (about the evils of incest and to introduce Moav and Ammon), Bereshit 25:28-30 (that the story of the sale of the birthright is meant to provide insight into the characters of both Yaakov and Esav),  Bereshit 26:23 (about the historical lessons that can be learned from the story of Yitzchak's well digging), or Bereshit 39: 7 (that the story of Mrs. Potiphar teaches lessons in both self control and trust in Hashem).

⁵⁷ See, for example, Bereshit 18:3, 19:3, 24:18 where Radak notes that the details of Avraham, Lot and Rivak's hospitality come to teach proper treatment of guests, Bereshit 24:64 or 29:23, that one can learn from Rivka and Yaakov's actions lessons in modesty, Bereshit 32:14, that Yaakov's preparations for his encounter with Esav teach that one should not trust in miracles, and Bereshit  39:7, that one should learn from Yosef to conquer one's inclinations.

⁵⁸ See, for example, Bereshit 24:30, where Radak suggests that Lavan's actions are shared to reveal his greed,  Bereshit 25:10 that the sale of the cave of Machpelah is repeated to highlight Avraham's belief in Hashem despite obstacles along the way, or Bereshit 25:26-28 that the story of the buying of the birthright reveals Esav's rashness and insatiable appetite, while the mention of his marriage in Bereshit 26:35, teaches about his insensitivity to his parents.

⁵⁹ See, for example, Bereshit 24:62, 27:1, 36:20, 38:26, 39:7,

⁶⁰ Radak does not use the language of "מעשה אבות סימן לבנים" (the actions of the fathers are a sign for the children) but in several places appears to apply the concept. For example, he notes that Yaakov's grasping Esav's heel was a "sign" that eventually he would dominate over his brother (Bereshit 25:26) or the story of the digging of wells and ensuing quarrels was a "sign" of which lands would eventually fall under Israel's sovereignty (Bereshit 26:23).  Other stories which he thinks are mentioned in order to give the reader insight into historical developments include the births of Ammon and Moav (19:32) and the cursing of Canaan (9:20).

⁶¹ For a more comprehensive discussion of Radak's views on the topic and how they compare to those of Ibn Ezra, see: א. סימון, "ראב"ע ורד"ק – שתי גישות לשאלת מהימנות נוסח המקרא", בר-אילן, ו' (תשכ"ח / 1968): 237-191.

⁶² See his comments on Bereshit 25:1, Melakhim I 1:18, and Yirmeyahu 15:14.

⁶³ See his comments on Shofetim 6:19, Yeshayahu 43:14, Yirmeyahu 11:2, Yirmeyahu 46:23, Yechezkel 11:16, and Divrei HaYamim I 2:55.

⁶⁴ See his comments on Shofetim 11:25.

⁶⁵ See, for instance his comments on Yeshayahu 29:13, 43:14 and Yirmeyahu 15:14.

⁶⁶ See his comments on Melakhim I 7:18, 7:50, 19:2, Melakhim II 17:31, Yeshayahu 57:21, 60:5, Yirmeyahu 1:16, Yechezkel 12:24 and Tehillim 102:13-14.

⁶⁷ See, for instance, his comments on Shofetim 1:24, 5:1, 14:18, Shemuel I 13:2, 17:18, 18:1, Shemuel II 10:10, 12:24, and 23:25, Yeshayahu 29:13.

⁶⁸ See his comments on Shemuel I 9:1, Divrei HaYamim I 7:2, 9:2, and Divrei HaYamim II 13:2.  In these cases he does not explicitly attribute the dual name to the similarity in spelling.

⁶⁹ See his comments on Divrei HaYamim I 5:6.

⁷⁰ See Radak Hoshea 12:12.