Difference between revisions of "Commentators:R. Yosef Bekhor Shor/0"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m |
m |
||
Line 67: | Line 67: | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
<li><b>Family</b> – Bekhor Shor cites his father once in his commentary,<fn>In his commentary to Vayikra 23:16. He does not mention his father’s name, but it seems to have been Yitzchak, see note above in the Name section.</fn> and he had a son who is cited in Tosafist literature, called R. Avraham b. R. Yosef of Orleans.<fn>See Urbach, ibid.: 140-141.</fn></li> | <li><b>Family</b> – Bekhor Shor cites his father once in his commentary,<fn>In his commentary to Vayikra 23:16. He does not mention his father’s name, but it seems to have been Yitzchak, see note above in the Name section.</fn> and he had a son who is cited in Tosafist literature, called R. Avraham b. R. Yosef of Orleans.<fn>See Urbach, ibid.: 140-141.</fn></li> | ||
− | <li><b>Teachers</b> – R. Yaakov Tam<fn>See Urbach, Ba’alei HaTosafot: 132-139 regarding Halakhic correspondences between Bekhor Shor and R. Tam. Bekhor Shor, however, never mentions R. Tam or his grammatical work Hakhra’ot in his Torah commentary. Urbach (ibid.:136) theorizes that this is because Bekhor Shor paid scant attention to grammatical matters in his commentary. There are, however, cases where Bekhor Shor seems to be following his master’s commentary despite not citing him. See Nisan, Analysis: 92. See also ibid.: 19-25, for an analysis of Bekhor Shor’s grammatical comments.</fn></li> | + | <li><b>Teachers</b> – R. Yaakov Tam<fn>See Urbach, Ba’alei HaTosafot: 132-139 regarding Halakhic correspondences between Bekhor Shor and R. Tam.<br/>Bekhor Shor, however, never mentions R. Tam or his grammatical work Hakhra’ot in his Torah commentary. Urbach (ibid.:136) theorizes that this is because Bekhor Shor paid scant attention to grammatical matters in his commentary.<br/>There are, however, cases where Bekhor Shor seems to be following his master’s commentary despite not citing him. See Nisan, Analysis: 92. See also ibid.: 19-25, for an analysis of Bekhor Shor’s grammatical comments.</fn></li> |
− | <li><b>Contemporaries</b> – <a href="R. Shemuel b. Meir (Rashbam)" data-aht="parshan">Rashbam</a>,<multilink><a href="#" data-aht="source"> R. Eliezer of Beaugency</a></multilink>,<fn>A Northern French peshat exegete.</fn><multilink><a href="#" data-aht="source"> R. Avraham Ibn Ezra</a></multilink><fn>The relationship between Ibn Ezra and Bekhor Shor is a matter of scholarly debate. Ibn Ezra is mentioned twice in Bekhor Shor’s commentary (Bereshit 49:4, Shemot 24:11), but both instances are introduced with the note “haggah”, apparently indicating that it was added by a copyist. There are affinities between the commentaries in a number of places, but on the question of influence there are a range of opinions, from those who think it indisputable that Bekhor Shor was acquainted with Ibn Ezra’s commentaries, to those who claim that Bekhor Shor was completely unaware of Ibn Ezra’s commentaries | + | <li><b>Contemporaries</b> – <a href="R. Shemuel b. Meir (Rashbam)" data-aht="parshan">Rashbam</a>,<multilink><a href="#" data-aht="source"> R. Eliezer of Beaugency</a></multilink>,<fn>A Northern French peshat exegete.</fn><multilink><a href="#" data-aht="source"> R. Avraham Ibn Ezra</a></multilink><fn>The relationship between Ibn Ezra and Bekhor Shor is a matter of scholarly debate. Ibn Ezra is mentioned twice in Bekhor Shor’s commentary (Bereshit 49:4, Shemot 24:11), but both instances are introduced with the note “haggah”, apparently indicating that it was added by a copyist.<br/>There are affinities between the commentaries in a number of places, but on the question of influence there are a range of opinions, from those who think it indisputable that Bekhor Shor was acquainted with Ibn Ezra’s commentaries, to those who claim that Bekhor Shor was completely unaware of Ibn Ezra’s commentaries<br/> Some scholars also see some potential influence of Bekhor Shor on Ibn Ezra. See Nisan, Analysis: 83-90.</fn></li> |
<li><b>Students</b> – </li> | <li><b>Students</b> – </li> | ||
<li><b>Time period</b> – </li> | <li><b>Time period</b> – </li> | ||
Line 77: | Line 77: | ||
<subcategory>Works | <subcategory>Works | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
− | <li><b>Biblical commentaries</b> – Torah,<fn> | + | <li><b>Biblical commentaries</b> – Torah,<fn>Bekhor Shor’s commentary belongs to the Northern French peshat school, which included commentators such as Rashi, R. Yosef Kara, Rashbam, and R. Eliezer of Beaugency, the latter two being older contemporaries of Bekhor Shor.<br/>Scholarly consensus views Bekhor Shor as occupying a middle position between Rashi’s extensive reliance on Midrash, and the relatively extreme rejection of Midrash by R. Yosef Kara and Rashbam (see M. Lockshin, “האם היה יוסף בכור שור פשטן?,” Iggud: Selected Essays in Jewish Studies Volume 1: The Bible and Its World, Rabbinic Literature and Jewish Law, and Jewish Thought (2005): 161-172).<br/>Scholars have discussed a number of distinguishing traits of Bekhor Shor's commentary:<br/> |
+ | <ul> | ||
+ | <li>A tendency to focus on psychological issues within the Torah’s narrative (see Y. Nevo, "The Exegetical Method of R. Joseph Bekhor Shor” (Leiden, 1987): 40-46).</li> | ||
+ | <li>Displays a marked interest in realia (see Y. Nevo, "קווי פרשנות אופייניים לר' יוסף בכור שור", Sinai 103 (1988): 56-58).</li> | ||
+ | <li>Urbach (Ba’alei HaTosafot: 134) observes that Bekhor Shor’s commentary excels in its sensitivity to the Torah’s narrative style (see above, Occupation, regarding Bekhor Shor’s literary sense).</li> | ||
+ | <li>Bekhor Shor is further distinct from other Northern French commentators in his efforts to avoid any anthropomorphism, to explain miracles in a naturalistic manner, to provide rationalistic reasons for the commandments, and to defend the actions of the Patriarchs against criticism (ibid.). It is striking that the first three of these tendencies are hallmarks of the approach of Rambam (who lived at roughly the same time as Bekhor Shor in Egypt) and other Sephardic medieval rationalist interpreters. Urbach (ibid: 134-135) theorizes that what led Bekhor Shor in this direction, more than any potential influence of Sephardic commentators, was his need to counter the claims of local Christian critics and Jewish heretics (some of whom apparently allegorized the Torah’s mitzvot). Accordingly, Bekhor Shor criticizes certain comments of Rashbam that play into the hands of those who allegorize the mitzvot. See Bekhor Shor to Devarim 10:9, and Urbach, ibid.:135.</li> | ||
+ | </ul></fn> Tehillim<fn>Only fragments of this commentary have been preserved. They were published in: Z. Kahn, "Le Livere de Joseph le Zalateur", REJ 3 (1881): 5, and M. Liber, "Bibliographie", REJ 58 (1909): 309-311. See also the note above in Dates.</fn></li> | ||
<li><b>Rabbinics</b> –  | <li><b>Rabbinics</b> –  | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
Line 95: | Line 101: | ||
<subcategory>Characteristics | <subcategory>Characteristics | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
− | + | <li><b>Verse by verse / Topical</b> – </li> | |
− | + | <li><b>Genre</b> – </li> | |
− | + | <li><b>Structure</b> – </li> | |
− | + | <li><b>Language</b> – </li> | |
− | + | <li><b>Peshat and derash</b> – </li> | |
− | + | </ul> | |
</subcategory> | </subcategory> | ||
<subcategory>Methods | <subcategory>Methods | ||
Line 114: | Line 120: | ||
<subcategory>Textual Issues | <subcategory>Textual Issues | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
− | + | <li><b>Manuscripts</b> – All editions have been based on a sole extant manuscript – Munich 52. </li> | |
− | + | <li><b>Printings</b> – Published in 1994 by Mosad HaRav Kook as: פירושי רבי יוסף בכור שור על התורה (Ed. Y. Nevo), and recently included in Mikraot Gedolot HaKeter published by Bar Ilan University.<fn>For other editions, see Priel, R. Yosef: 116-117.</fn></li> | |
− | + | <li><b>Textual layers</b> – </li> | |
− | + | </ul> | |
</subcategory> | </subcategory> | ||
</category> | </category> |
Version as of 08:03, 31 July 2015
R. Yosef Bekhor Shor – Intellectual Profile
This page is a stub.
Please contact us if you would like to assist in its development.
Please contact us if you would like to assist in its development.
Name | R. Yosef Bekhor Shor ר' יוסף בכור שור |
---|---|
Dates | 12th century |
Location | Northern France |
Works | Torah and Tehillim commentaries, novellae on the Talmud, liturgical poems |
Exegetical Characteristics | |
Influenced by | Rashbam, R. Tam |
Impacted on | Sefer HaGan, Baalei HaTosafot, Ramban |
Background1
Life
- Name –
- Hebrew name – ר' יוסף בכור שור2
- _ name –
- Dates – Middle to late 12th century3
- Location – Northern France4
- Education and Occupation – No more than a skeletal history of Bekhor Shor’s life can be constructed from the sources that currently exist.5
- Lived in the 12th century Northern French Tosafist milieu, and was a disciple of Rabbenu Tam.6
- He was a Halakhist/Talmudist whose novellae are included in Tosafot, as well as a Bible commentator.
- From his writings it can be deduced that he knew Latin and was familiar with Christian biblical exegesis.7
- He also was a paytan (author of liturgical poems)8 who seems to have had a rather well-developed literary sense.9
- His prominent position within the Tosafist world is attested by frequent use of his commentaries by later Tosafist compendia.10
- Family – Bekhor Shor cites his father once in his commentary,11 and he had a son who is cited in Tosafist literature, called R. Avraham b. R. Yosef of Orleans.12
- Teachers – R. Yaakov Tam13
- Contemporaries – Rashbam, R. Eliezer of Beaugency,14 R. Avraham Ibn Ezra15
- Students –
- Time period –
- World outlook –
Works
Torah Commentary
Characteristics
- Verse by verse / Topical –
- Genre –
- Structure –
- Language –
- Peshat and derash –
Methods
- –
Themes
- –
Textual Issues
- Manuscripts – All editions have been based on a sole extant manuscript – Munich 52.
- Printings – Published in 1994 by Mosad HaRav Kook as: פירושי רבי יוסף בכור שור על התורה (Ed. Y. Nevo), and recently included in Mikraot Gedolot HaKeter published by Bar Ilan University.21
- Textual layers –
Sources
Significant Influences
- Earlier Sources –
- Teachers –
- Foils –