Commentators:R. Yosef Kara's Commentary on Neviim Rishonim/1

R. Yosef Kara's Commentary on Neviim Rishonim¹

Introduction

Open Text of Commentary

The Kirchheim Manuscript

R. Yosef Kara's Commentary on Neviim Rishonim is one of several important Northern French Peshat commentaries² which survived until modern times in only a single textual witness.  This work was preserved in what is known as the 'Kirchheim manuscript', which was subsequently lost during the Shoah.³  Fortunately, S. Eppenstein transcribed much of the manuscript before it was lost, thus preserving its content for posterity.⁴  This AlHaTorah.org edition is primarily based on Eppenstein's edition, yet it incorporates some important additions and improvements, as detailed in the following sections.

Restoring Missing Chapters from the Commentary on Yehoshua

MS Kirchheim was missing the early chapters of Sefer Yehoshua and, as a result, Eppenstein's edition of the commentary began only in the middle of Yehoshua 8:13.  Recently, though, we discovered evidence that two of the missing Yehoshua chapters of R. Yosef Kara's commentary survived by being incorporated in a commentary on the Haftarot found in MS Cincinnati JCF 1 (one of these two chapters was also preserved in four other related manuscripts⁵).  The text of the commentary on these two chapters can now be accessed at Yehoshua 1 and Yehoshua 5, and it contains several novel interpretations.  The evidence for the identification of R. Yosef Kara as the author of these chapters can be divided into three main categories:

A. Structure of the Cincinnati MS

There are dozens of manuscripts in which Rashi's Torah Commentary is followed by a Haftarot commentary collated from Rashi's assorted commentaries on the books of Neviim.  In MS Cincinnati JCF 1, however, Rashi's Torah Commentary is followed by a very different Haftarot Commentary.  In fact, the Cincinnati Haftarot Commentary could be more precisely described as a conflation of two disparate commentarial endeavors:

• The initial part, which constitutes the bulk of the work, contains a commentary on 45 Haftarot, including the Haftarot for forty⁶ (of the fifty-four) Parshiyot followed by the Haftarot for the Shabbatot of Rosh Chodesh, Machar Chodesh, Shekalim, Zakhor, and Parah.⁷  The commentary on all of the Haftarot in this first section with but two exceptions⁸ is not derived from the known commentaries of Rashi and R. Yosef Kara but rather constitutes a new (anonymous) commentary.⁹

• The second section contains a commentary on a total of 23 Haftarot, which include the Haftarot for most of the festival days of Pesach, Shavuot, Rosh HaShanah, Yom HaKippurim, Sukkot, Shemini Atzeret, and Simchat Torah,¹⁰ the Haftarot for nine¹¹ of the Parshiyot missing in the first section, as well as the Haftarot for Tish'a BeAv and Shabbat HaGadol.  A full twenty-one of these twenty-three Haftarot can readily be shown to be lifted almost verbatim¹² from the commentaries of Rashi, R. Yosef Kara, and the Commentary attributed to R. Yosef Kara on Shemuel.¹³ 

The remaining two Haftarot from these twenty-three are both from the beginning of Yehoshua (Chapter 1, the Haftarah for Simchat Torah, and Chapter 5, the Haftarah for the first day of Pesach), where we do not possess the commentary of R. Yosef Kara.  Thus, given that each of the other twenty-one Haftarot in this second section can be sourced to either Rashi or R. Yosef Kara,¹⁴ and that these two Yehoshua chapters of the Cincinnati MS commentary bear no resemblance to Rashi's commentary,¹⁵ it would appear that R. Yosef Kara's lost commentary on the early chapters of Yehoshua is their likely source.¹⁶  This hypothesis can be confirmed to a reasonable degree of probability by the following analysis of both the content and language of the commentary on these two chapters.

B.  Content Parallels

There are five interpretations found in the Cincinnati commentary on these chapters of Yehoshua which closely match interpretations found elsewhere in R. Yosef Kara's extant commentaries. Table 1 displays these parallels.  While one of these interpretations¹⁷ can be found also in Rashi,¹⁸ the other four parallels are distinctive interpretations of R. Yosef Kara which differ from those of his fellow Northern French commentators:

• Yehoshua 1:7 – R. Yosef Kara's interpretation of the "חֲזַק וֶאֱמַץ מְאֹד לִשְׁמֹר לַעֲשׂוֹת כְּכׇל הַתּוֹרָה" to refer exclusively to the commandment of wiping out the Seven Nations is a radical departure from the commonplace understanding of the verse (see BavliBerakhot 32bAbout the Bavli and RashiYehoshua 1:7About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki) and is not picked up by later commentators.  MS Cincinnati enables us to see that R"Y Kara first presented this interpretation in his comments on the command in Yehoshua 1:7, and he then repeated the interpretation in his remarks on the fulfillment of the command in 11:14-15.¹⁹
• Yehoshua 5:4 – R"Y Kara's interpretation of "זֶה הַדָּבָר" stands in contrast to the Midrashic approach of Bereshit Rabbah cited by Rashi.²⁰  However, what truly makes his interpretation unique is his sweeping assertion that all Biblical occurrences of the phrase are to be explicated by the content which precedes or follows them.
• Yehoshua 5:12 – Numerous commentators attempt to address the need for the doublet in Shemot 16:35 of when the Israelites ceased to eat the Manna: "עַד בֹּאָם אֶל אֶרֶץ נוֹשָׁבֶת... עַד בֹּאָם אֶל קְצֵה אֶרֶץ כְּנָעַן".  However many different answers are given, and it is only R"Y Kara who explains that the second part of the verse was needed to prevent a misunderstanding which would create a difficulty when arriving at Yehoshua 5:12.²¹ This interpretation was known in Tosafist circles to be from R"Y Kara, and it is cited in his name in both the Oxford Marsh 225 - Munich 252 compilation and Hadar Zekenim.²²
• Yehoshua 5:15 – The interpretation of "שַׁל" as to cast down is not so unique, however R"Y Kara is unique in similarly explaining the phrase "שֹׁל תָּשֹׁלּוּ" found in Rut 2:16.²³

These cases thus lend considerable support to the claim that these chapters of the Cincinnati commentary were compiled from the commentary of R. Yosef Kara.²⁴

C.  Distinctive Linguistic Markers

Additional evidence can be adduced from an examination of the distinctive formulations used in the Cincinnati commentary, virtually all of which find parallels in the writings of R. Yosef Kara, and many of which are unique to him.  Perhaps the most blatant example may be found at the end of the interpretation of Yehoshua 5:9: "ופשוטו של דבר ויישובו כתבתי, ולא תסור ממנו ימין ושמאל".  This assertive language is indicative of a commentator of significant stature, who possesses a formidable self-confidence, enough to command the reader to adhere to his interpretation.  Almost identical formulae can, in fact, be found in at least four other places throughout R. Yosef Kara's literary oeuvre:²⁵ Shemuel I 1:3 ("ומפתרון זה אל תט ימין ושמאל"), Yeshayahu 8:18 ("ומן הפתרון הזה לא תטה ימין ושמאל"), Yeshayahu 11:11 ("ומן הדרך הזה ומן הפתרון הזה אל תט ימין ושמאל"), Kohelet 10:10 ("ומפתרון זה לא תסור ימין ושמאל").²⁶  The phrase is scarcely to be found in any other commentaries.²⁷

Additional phrases found in MS Cincinnati 1 which are hallmarks of R. Yosef Kara and are only rarely used by other commentators include:

• "פשוטו של דבר" (Yehoshua 5:4-6, 5:9) – This phrase appears twice in MS Cincinnati and another ten times in R"Y Kara.²⁸  It almost never appears in any other commentaries.
• "פתרונו בצדו / פתרונם בצדם" (Yehoshua 5:4-6, 5:14) – This term comes up twice in MS Cincinnati and another nine times in R"Y Kara's other commentaries,²⁹ but almost nowhere else in medieval literature.³⁰
• "תדע שכן" (Yehoshua 5:11) –This common Rabbinic phrase appears only twice in Rashi³¹ and not at all in Rashbam or R"Y Bekhor Shor, but it comes up on seventeen occasions in R"Y Kara.³²
• "שגור בפי הכל" (Yehoshua 5:9) – This phrase is used by R"Y Kara on five occasions³³  to refer to a well known Midrashic interpretation.  It is not used by other medieval commentators.
• "אחר פשוטו" (Yehoshua 5:4-6) – This combination comes up once in MS Cincinnati and another five times in R"Y Kara.³⁴  It appears only once in each of Rashi and Rashbam.
• "סתומות/סתומים בתחילתם/ן" (Yehoshua 5:14) –This phrase appears another five times in R"Y Kara,³⁵ but not in other commentators.
• "פשוטו ויישובו" (Yehoshua 5:4-6) – This term appears once in MS Cincinnati and once more in R"Y Kara.³⁶  It does not appear at all in other literature.
• "כל מקום שאת/שאתה מוצא" (Yehoshua 5:4-6) – This commonplace Rabbinic formula appears only three times in Rashi and once in Rashbam, but a full twenty-one times in R"Y Kara's commentaries.
• "אילו נאמר... הייתי אומר" (Yehoshua 1:11) – This Rabbinic formula appears four times in R"Y Kara's commentaries,³⁷ but not at all in Rashi, Rashbam, or R"Y Bekhor Shor.

In addition to the above phrases which have a distinctive R"Y Kara flavor, virtually every phrase which appears in MS Cincinnati occurs also in other instances in R"Y Kara's commentaries.³⁸  The cumulative weight of the linguistic analysis, thus, constitutes very strong evidence for R. Yosef Kara's authorship of the Yehoshua chapters in the Cincinnati MS.

Textual Improvements Enabled by New MSS Findings

Since Eppenstein's edition was based on a sole surviving textual witness, it had little recourse in cases where the Kirchheim MS had lacunae or was corrupted.  The Cincinnati MS and its group of related manuscripts now provide additional information and insights which allow us to improve our version of the text of R. Yosef Kara's commentary on two other Haftarot from Neviim Rishonim: Shemuel I 1 (the Haftarah read on Rosh HaShanah Day 1) and Melakhim II 10 (the Haftarah read on Parashat Shekalim).³⁹  An analysis of Table 2 and Table 3 will IY"H be coming soon...

Acknowledgments and Manuscript List

AlHaTorah.org's edition of R. Yosef Kara's Commentary on Neviim Rishonim utilizes a number of manuscripts.⁴⁰  We gratefully acknowledge the libraries which house them for preserving these texts for posterity:

• Breslau 11 (Saraval 5) – now in Prague National Library
• Cincinnati JCF MS 1 – Cincinnati - Hebrew Union College – Judaica Conservancy Foundation
• Hamburg Hebr. 32 – Staats und Universitaetsbibliothek Hamburg
• Prague NK XVIII F 6 – Prague National Library
• St. Petersburg Evr. I 21 – National Library of Russia

We also thank Mosad Harav Kook for their gracious generosity in granting us permission to utilize their edition (Jerusalem, 1972) of R. Yosef Kara's commentary on Melakhim II.

Finally, we express our appreciation to the staff of the Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts for all of their assistance.

¹ AlHaTorah.org gratefully acknowledges all of the hard work of Yonatan, Aviva, Ariella, and Yehuda Novetsky in helping to decipher the riddle of MS Cincinnati 1 and restore the lost chapters of R. Yosef Kara on Yehoshua.

² Cf. Rashbam's Torah Commentary, R. Yosef Bekhor Shor's Torah Commentary, and R. Eliezer of Beaugency's commentaries on Yeshayahu, Yechezkel, and Terei Asar.  Our study of Tanakh and Parshanut would be immeasurably poorer if not for our good fortune that these lone manuscripts managed to survive.  At the same time, one cannot help but lament that other commentaries were completely lost. Examples of this latter category include much of R. Yosef Kara's Torah Commentary, Rashbam's commentaries on Neviim, and R. Eliezer of Beaugency's Torah Commentary.  All we currently possess from these are a few of the commentator's own cross-references and scant secondhand citations.
Recent manuscript discoveries, however, have enabled the restoration of parts of R. Yosef Kara's Torah Commentary, portions of the missing chapters at the beginning of Rashbam's Torah Commentary, and approximately two-thirds of Rashbam's Tehillim Commentary.  These give hope that perhaps some day additional portions of Northern French Peshat commentaries will yet be recovered.

³ The Breslau MS which contained the lone witness of Rashbam's Torah Commentary also went missing during the Shoah.  The current whereabouts of each of these manuscripts remain unknown, and hopefully some day they will be found and be accessible again.

⁴ Eppenstein's editions of the first five parts (Yehoshua, Shofetim, Samuel I and II, and Melakhim I) of the commentary were published piecemeal in Jahrbuch für Jüdische Geschichte und Literatur 4-13 from 1906-1920 (a photo offset of this edition was republished in 1971 by Makor). The final part (Melakhim II) was published only posthumously from Eppenstein's transcription (together with the previously published parts) in 1972 by Mossad HaRav Kook.  [A more recent version, incorporated in Mikraot Gedolot HaKeter, ed. M. Cohen (Ramat Gan, 1992-1995) also utilizes Eppenstein's text as its base.]  While these editions salvaged much of the commentary's content, the current inaccessibility of the original manuscript hampers the ability to evaluate the quality of Eppenstein's editions or to correct mistakes he may have made.

⁵ These are: MS Breslau 11, Prague F6, Hamburg 32, and St. Petersburg I.21 (see links below in the Manuscripts List section).  A more detailed description of these manuscripts and the relationship between them can be found in our forthcoming Introduction to the Northern French Haftarot Commentary.

⁶ This count includes the commentary on the Haftarah of "דרשו ה' בהמצאו" which follows a note in the MS that the interpretation of "עניה סערה" (the Haftarah of Reeh) can be found earlier (in the commentary on the overlapping Haftarah of Parashat Noach). The section of "דרשו ה' בהמצאו" immediately follows the section of "עניה סערה" in the book of Yeshayahu, and the French custom (see Machzor Vitri p. 223) was to read part of it on Parashat Reeh (since "עניה סערה" is much shorter than the desired 21 verses usually mandated for a Haftarah). The full Haftarah of "דרשו ה' בהמצאו" was also read as the Haftarah for either Parashat Vayelekh or Tzom Gedaliah (see R. Tam in Machzor Vitri pp. 223-224 and Tosafot Megillah 31b s.v. "ראש חדש".).

⁷ A commentary on Parashat HaChodesh is missing in the Cincinnati MS (for either inadvertent or unknown reasons) but does appear in the parallel commentary in MS Breslau 11. Its character is similar to that of the other members of the set of "ארבע פרשיות" (i.e. it is not lifted from Rashi or R. Yosef Kara).

⁸ Vayetze (the bulk of which parallels the Haftarah for Shabbat Shuvah and is duplicated in the second section of the MS) and Rosh Chodesh (found near the end of this section).

⁹ This commentary is in the process of being published as part of ALHATORAH.ORG's online Mikraot Gedolot, and parts of it are already available there.

¹⁰ There are three Haftarot of festivals missing in the Cincinnati MS (for either inadvertent or unknown reasons) which do appear in the parallel commentary in MS Breslau 11. They are the Haftarot for the second day of Pesach, Shabbat Chol HaMoed Pesach, and the first day of Shavuot (and the commentary on each of these is drawn from either Rashi or R. Yosef Kara). A commentary on the Haftarah for Shabbat Chol HaMoed Sukkot does not appear in any of the manuscripts (reason unknown). [The Haftarot for Shabbatot of Chanukkah overlap with those of Behaalotekha and Vayakhel.]

¹¹ These are:  Mishpatim (which was already had a Haftarah in the first section but has a second and different one here), Vayakhel, Tzav, Shemini, Korach, Pinechas (which appears at the end), Ki Tavo, Nitzavim, Vayelekh.  Subtracting the overlap of Mishpatim, these nine Haftarot together with the forty Haftarot found in the first section of the commentary, account for 48 (of 54) Parshiyot. Four of the six missing Parshiyot overlap with other Haftarot and thus are in fact found in the MS. These are: Pekudei (its Haftarah overlaps with the second day of Sukkot), Ki Tetze (its Haftarah overlaps with Noach), Haazinu (its Haftarah overlaps with that of Pesach Day 7), and VeZot HaBerakhah (its Haftarah is that of Simchat Torah). The remaining two are Metzora and Emor, and it is unclear why these (and, particularly, Emor) are missing from the Cincinnati MS. A commentary on these two does exist in the parallel Breslau 11 MS, and it is possible that one or both were inadvertently omitted in the Cincinnati MS.

¹² This is in stark contrast to the earlier (and larger) portion of MS Cincinnati's Haftarot commentary which does not copy wholesale from the commentaries of Rashi and R. Yosef Kara, and only occasionally contains parallel content. It appears likely that the first section of the commentary formed the original creative layer of the commentary, and that the second section came about at a later stage, possibly even from a second author who lifted from existing commentaries in order to fill in the Haftarot missing in the initial layer.

¹³ Fifteen of these twenty-one are taken from Rashi, five from R. Yosef Kara, and one from the Commentary attributed to R. Yosef Kara.  [In the Haftarah for Rosh Hashanah Day 1, only the first chapter is taken from R. Yosef Kara.]

¹⁴ Or, in one case, from the Commentary attributed to R"Y Kara.

¹⁵ A simple comparison of these chapters of the Cincinnati MS commentary to Rashi shows that there is almost no overlap.

¹⁶ The alternative possibility that these two chapters are an unknown Northern French commentary (like the forty three Haftarot in the first section of the Cincinnati manuscript) appears unlikely in light of both their placement in the second section of the Cincinnati manuscript and the following additional data from the related Haftarot manuscripts:
a)  All of MSS Hamburg 32, St. Petersburg I.21, Breslau 11, and Prague F6 contain Rashi's commentary on Yehoshua 5 for the Haftarah of Pesach Day 1, and there is no case in all of the Haftarot where Cincinnati 1 contains the anonymous commentary and the other four MSS all have Rashi.  [In fact, Breslau 11 on Acharei Mot is the only case where any one of these MSS has Rashi instead of the anonymous commentary in Cincinnati.]
b)  There are two other cases (the Haftarot of Rosh HaShanah Day 1 and Pesach Day 7 = Haazinu) in which Cincinnati 1 presents the commentary of R"Y Kara or the Commentary attributed to RY Kara, while the other four MSS all have Rashi.  This would appear to be the situation also in our case of Pesach Day 1.
c) MSS Hamburg 32, St. Petersburg I.21, and Prague F6 preserve a different and unrelated anonymous commentary (accessible in the Mikraot Gedolot) on Yehoshua 1, so if Cincinnati 1 were to also be preserving an anonymous commentary (rather than R"Y Kara), there would be two completely unrelated anonymous commentaries on this chapter.  However, there are only two cases (Shemot and Beshalach) in which Cincinnati 1 has an anonymous commentary and a different anonymous commentary is found in one of the other manuscripts, and in both of those cases, the two commentaries are very related to one another.

¹⁷ See the Cincinnati 1 interpretation of Yehoshua 1:8 in the Table 1 and the multiple versions of Rashi's commentary noted in the apparatus of our Mikraot Gedolot.

¹⁸ R. Yosef Kara's commentary frequently incorporates large swathes of Rashi's commentary.  For further discussion, see R. Yosef Kara's Torah Commentary.

¹⁹ As would be expected, R. Yosef Kara's interpretation of the command references the verses of the fulfillment, and his interpretation of the fulfillment references the verse of the command.

²⁰ A small group of Rashi manuscripts contain an interpolation here which may be influenced by the commentary of R"Y Kara.

²¹ Cf. Rashi, Rashbam, and Ibn Ezra on the verse in Shemot.

²² It is theoretically possible that these works are citing R. Yosef Kara's interpretation from his commentary on Yehoshua.  However, the broader discussion contained in their full citations appears to derive from R. Yosef Kara's (mostly lost) commentary on Shemot.

²³ Cf. Rashi, Rashbam, and Ibn Ezra on Rut 2:16 who interpret the phrase differently.

²⁴ The general methodologies (intrascriptural exegesis, contrast between Peshat and Derash, literary sensitivities, proposing of less common lexical usages) reflected in the commentary on Chapters 1 and 5 are also very consistent with R. Yosef Kara's exegesis.  However, these properties are also shared by the Northern French commentators who followed him (and were influenced by him).

²⁵ The context of R. Yosef Kara's use of the phrase here is a juxtaposition of Peshat and Midrash, which is a hallmark of his exegesis.  Cf. his famous programmatic statements on Shemuel I 1:17, 20.

²⁶ These phrases are adopted from the verses in Devarim 17:11, Yehoshua 1:7, and Mishlei 4:27.

²⁷ The one notable exception is at the end of the version of Rashbam's interpretation of Bereshit 37:2 found in MSS Oxford Marsh 225 and Munich 252 (and copied from this work by MS Hamburg 52 = the commentary published as R. Chaim Paltiel).

²⁸ See R"Y Kara Shofetim 1:3, Shemuel I 10:22, Shemuel II 14:2, Melakhim I 10:1, Melakhim I 20:7, Yeshayahu 1:18 (2x), Yeshayahu 5:8, Yeshayahu 23:4, Eikhah 4:6.

²⁹ See R"Y Kara Shofetim 5:24-25 (2X), Yeshayahu 3:1, Yeshayahu 7:15, Yeshayahu 34:6, Yoel 1:10, Yoel 3:3, Zekharyah 11:17 (2X).

³⁰ Its only other attestations are in Seikhel Tov Bereshit 28:12 and the anonymous Northern French Commentary on Esther 7:5 (3 times in one verse) in MS Parma 456.  It is highly probable that this latter interpretation is also from R"Y Kara.  Besides the linguistic similarity, its content matches R"Y Kara's interpretations in both Vayikra 26:43 and Esther 7:5 (MS Hamburg 32).

³¹ It also appears once in the Commentary on Divrei HaYamim erroneously attributed to Rashi.

³² See R"Y Kara Shemot 33:4-6, Yehoshua 9:23-27, Yehoshua 21:18, Shofetim 6:25-26, Shofetim 8:26, Shofetim 9:15, Shofetim 14:15, Melakhim I 1:2, Melakhim I 2:3, Yeshayahu 25:3-5, Yeshayahu 37:18, Yeshayahu 44:8, Yirmeyahu 50:11, Hoshea 5:3, Chaggai 1:2, Iyyov 26:11, Eikhah 4:7.

³³ See R"Y Kara Devarim 27:2, Melakhim I 18:26, Yeshayahu 19:7, Iyyov 1:14, Iyyov 3:3.

³⁴ See R"Y Kara Shemuel II 14:2, Yeshayahu 5:17, Yeshayahu 9:18, Yirmeyahu 2:31, Yirmeyahu 51:1.

³⁵ See R"Y Kara Shofetim 5:24, Shemuel II 22:16, Hoshea 2:7, Yoel 1:10, Zekharyah 11:17.

³⁶ See R"Y Kara Shemuel II 1:14.

³⁷ See R"Y Kara Shemuel I 10:22, Melakhim I 2:5, Iyyov 21:8, Kohelet 8:8.

³⁸ This list includes: "היכן דבר",‎ "לשון... נופל",‎ "כן הוא אומר",‎ "אי אפשר/איפשר לומר",‎ "שנינו בסדר עולם",‎ "וראיתי בבראשית רבה",‎ "זהו מדרשו. ופשוטו",‎ "תלה הכתוב",‎ "למעלה הימנו",‎ "לא יתכן",‎ "ודומה לו" and, of course, the ubiquitous "פתרונו". However, since each of these phrases appears by other commentators as well, their added weight can only be cumulative.

³⁹ Recently, in ‏‏מגנזי אירופה א (Jerusalem, 2015), Simcha Emanuel ‎published a fragment containing a Northern French commentary on Shofetim 13:5 – 15:2 which draws heavily upon R"Y Kara's commentary.  Emanuel also considers the option that this fragment was part of an earlier draft penned by R"Y Kara himself.  This latter possibility appears less likely, but either which way, this fragment is an important source for analyzing and improving the text of R"Y Kara's commentary on these chapters.

⁴⁰ A more detailed description of these manuscripts and the relationship between them can be found in our forthcoming Introduction to the Northern French Haftarot Commentary.