David Kimhi Research Articles

Medieval Jewish Exegesis of Psalm 2

This article is a comprehensive, and comparative analysis of the most relevant medieval Jewish exegetes who wrote commentaries on or explanations of Psalm 2: Saadiah Gaon, Yefet ben Eli, Salmon ben Yeruham, Rashi, Josef Bechor Shor, Abraham ibn Ezra, David Kimhi, Jacob ben Reuben, Menahem ha-Meiri, and Isaiah of Thrani. Comparison will show the different solutions provided by medieval Jewish exegetes to the question as to which historical or eschatological figures, nations, or kingdoms the psalm refers to. Other controversial issues such as the place of Psalm 2 within the book of Psalms are also explored.

The Challenge of Received Tradition: Dilemmas of Interpretation in Radak’s Biblical Commentaries by Naomi Grunhaus (review)

THE CHALLENGE OF RECEIVED TRADITION: DILEMMAS OF INTERPRETATION IN RADAK'S BIBLICAL COMMENTARIES By Naomi Grunhaus. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. 274 pp.Rabbi David Kimhi (Radak) (1160-1235) lived in Narbonne, Provence. His father, R. Joseph Kimhi, died while Radak was still a young child (approximately ten years old), and it was therefore his elder brother, R. Moses Kimhi, who was principally responsible for his religious education. Radak was a biblical commentator and a grammarian, and also engaged in polemics with Christians. His commentary, which covers most of the Bible, integrates the literalist approach to the text which he imbibed from the Jewish scholars in northern France; philological and philosophical exegesis which he adopted from the Spanish scholars; and midrashic (homiletical) interpretations which were popular in Provence. Over the course of many centuries, he has remained one of the most popular and widely quoted commentators in Jewish biblical scholarship.In recent years, Radak's teachings have become the subject of increased academic interest and many studies have addressed his commentary. Naomi Grunhaus's work joins this welcome trend. Her book focuses on Radak's attitude towards rabbinic midrashic literature. To this end she enlists all of Radak's known biblical exegesis, and undertakes a systematic comparison between his commentaries and his exegetical sources.The first chapter reviews Radak's statements of principles and methodology, scattered throughout his work, concerning midrashic teachings. Grunhaus concludes, on the basis of these statements, that Radak holds the homiletical exegetical tradition represented in the rabbinic sources in high esteem.In the second chapter the author examines the different ways in which Radak makes use of midrashic teachings as exegesis of the biblical text. She makes an important point in this regard, showing that in instances where Radak suffices with quoting the teaching, without offering an additional interpretation that addresses the plain meaning of the text, he views the rabbinic teaching as legitimate exegesis of the text. In so doing, Radak deviates from the path of the Spanish commentators who preceded him, who had denied any possibility that midrashic teachings could serve as legitimate interpretations. Another important observation she makes is that Radak perceives the biblical figures as conducting themselves in accordance with rabbinic law (even though the halakha would be written only many years after the events described in the Bible).The third chapter focuses on Radak's polarized comments, that is, instances where he proposes two alternative interpretations, one addressing the plain level of the text, the other citing a homiletical teaching. This is a most important chapter: Grunhaus shows, in contrast to the conventional scholarly view, that these polarized comments indicate that to Radak's view, midrashic teachings play a critical educational role. She also demonstrates that in many instances the midrashic portion of these polarized comments is closely and integrally bound up with the biblical text. Another important observation she makes is that in most instances where Radak starts with a midrashic teaching and only afterwards explains the plain meaning of the verse, the midrashic element has already been cited previously by Rashi. …

Why Did Hannah Ask for "Seed of Men"?

(ProQuest: ... denotes non-US-ASCII text omitted.) What was Hannah praying for? More specifically, how are we to explain the phrase ... in 1 Sam 1:11? In plain terms, we of course understand that Hannah was praying to have child. Our text has set this up as the basic point on which the plot of the story turns. As soon as the main characters-Elkanah and his two wives, Hannah and Peninnah-are identified, we are informed (v. 2), Peninnah had children, but Hannah did not. The setting of the story is the family's visit to Shiloh for worship and sacrifice. There is no reason to assume that the trip was made on the occasion of yearly pilgrimage festival. The phrase ..., annual (v. 21), simply refers to the sacrifice made annually by Elkanah and his family, which provided the setting of the events of vv. 3-19. Indeed, the course of the story would seem to argue against public festival. There is no one on the scene but Elkanah's family and the high priest, Eli, and the latter seems to have plenty of time on his hands. All we are told about him is that he is sitting on his priestly throne at the entrance to the shrine watching Hannah mutter to herself. This is not what we would expect the chief priest to be doing on the busiest weekend of the year. If the festival was indeed public occasion, our chapter's narrow focus is all the more evident. For our story is about one thing and one thing only: Hannah wants child. But the phrase with which she makes her request falls into little-discussed category of biblical texts: those in which the process of exegesis runs in reverse. We ordinarily must understand writer's words in order to interpret his meaning, but we sometimes find ourselves with sense of what the writer must mean, though it has not been clearly expressed. In such cases our task is to explain how the writer's unusual choice of words was indeed meant to convey the meaning that we somehow intuit. My instincts say that this category is larger than we would like to admit, and that by the nature of the beast there must be examples where what we all know it means is actually wrong. I intend to suggest here that Hannah's request is one such case. The difficulty arises because-if I may step for moment into my role as professor of Biblical Hebrew-the phrase ..., and can only mean, human offspring.1 Indeed, the medieval interpreter David Kimhi does offer as one of his comments on this phrase the suggestion that Hannah was praying for who would not resemble monkey or eunuch. But the story has provided no reason that Hannah should fear an outcome of this kind. Others of the medievals join Kimhi in further suggestion that what Hannah wanted was who would be real man-righteous (as ... are called in 1 Kgs 2:32), prominent (1 Sam 17:12), and wise (Deut 1:13). The common understanding of the phrase among modern interpreters-from Henry Preserved Smith in the ICC century ago to Jan P. Fokkelman in 1993-is that Hannah wants son.2 Bible translations too, from a man child of the KJV to seed of Robert Alter3 make the same assumption. Certainly neither this nor the hope that her would be worthy man is an absurd request, but according to the logic of the story neither of these is the request that Hannah is making. This is not to say, of course, that Hannah did not want who would grow up to be righteous, prominent, and wise. She might even, if pressed, have expressed preference for male child. Elkanah's rhetorical question, Am I not better to you than ten sons? (v. 8), could be interpreted as support for this (though it need not be).4 But this says nothing about what Hannah herself wants, and the narrator (in vv. 2 and 4) has carefully avoided framing the child's sex as the focus of the story. What Hannah wants is child, plain and simple. The careful interweaving of two chains of consecutive verbs-one describing what happened every year when Elkanah and his brood went to Shiloh, and one describing what happened on one particular occasion5-demonstrates that the action of our story begins where it does because Hannah has reached the end of her rope. …

Fashioning Jewish Identity in Medieval Western Christendom (review)

Reviewed by: Fashioning Jewish Identity in Medieval Western Christendom Herbert W. Basser Fashioning Jewish Identity in Medieval Western Christendom, by Robert Chasan. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004. 379 pp. $75.00. Christianity, once an obscure Jewish sect, rose to be a major world religion. In so doing it retained the story of harsh Pharisaic suppressions and divine displeasure at them. This memory became enshrined in the New Testament's argument that adherence to the Law of Moses and dismissal of the divinity of Jesus Christ brought God to abrogate his covenant with the Jews. Succeeding generations of Christians always imaged the Jew as the powerful suppressor and enemy of Christian values. Jews, from the beginning, felt a need to dispute Christian claims (aiming to convince and convert); sometimes they were forced to debate, and a few medieval Rabbis have left us their textbooks, records, and commentaries concerning their views of the groundless claims of the Christian attack on Judaism. Robert Chazan has written a book to inform us of some details of Jewish polemical writings in Northern Spain and Southern France. Chasan does not discuss the Jewish/pagan and Christian/pagan polemics that occurred apart from the early Jewish/Christian attacks and counter attacks. The cases are not at all comparable: Jesus had sprung up on Jewish soil, physically and spiritually, and these issues cut deeper to the bone. How did Jews respond? It would seem they more than held their own in literary and actual debates. Any student of medieval polemics finds it difficult to know what precisely is literary and what was face-to-face confrontation. The author, a prominent medievalist, has limited his scope to only a few writings of polemicists: Joseph (Northern Spain and Narbonne) and David Kimhi (Narbonne), Meir bar Simon (Narbonne), Jacob ben Reuben (time and place unknown), Moses Nachmanides [End Page 180] (Northern Spain) and a few references here and there to some minor works. He claims he has discovered a new literary genre that took form in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries: Jewish polemical writings. He probes the reasons of why it came to be when and where it did. Does he realize that biblical commentaries (or is this a new genre too?) from these areas are also unknown prior to the late eleventh and twelfth centuries? I suspect we have this literature from these places at this time because, for whatever reason, preservations of written materials stemming from these places date from these times and not earlier. Lack of evidence is not always evidence of lack. Connecting some earlier faint dots (which Chasan sees as garbled and rudimentary) might show us that the genre is not so new. More than anything else the Jewish mindset both in medieval Ashkenaz and Sepharad stemmed from the religiously oriented communal culture that Rabbinic leaders had nurtured for many centuries. For this reason it is fitting to note that both sides saw the medieval disputes as a continuation of past frictions, as Nachmanides claimed (referring to a talmudic story about the Sanhedrin's debates with Jesus' disciples—who were, in the end, executed by it) in the written introduction to his famous disputation in Barcelona. Now, however, the debates often ended in real-life dire consequences for Jews. Christians judged the outcome of the debates. In France, cartloads of valuable Talmud manuscripts were burned as debates began to center on the anti-Christian teachings of the Talmud. In Spain, whole communities were forced to convert. Although Chasan does not discuss these burnings and conversions at length, it is noteworthy that the anti-Christian teachings of the Talmud that migrated in fuller form into Toldot Yeshu (purporting to give the authoritative account of Jesus as a blasphemous sorcerer) and similar dismissive stories formed the Jewish attitude to Christianity no less than the New Testament and Church Fathers had formed the Christian attitude to Judaism. Whatever ancient rubrics in talmudic law existed to separate Jew and pagan were used by Jews as constant reminders that Christians were in no wise their monotheistic brothers and sisters. In their subjugation to Christianity, Jews even saw themselves as forced participants in the worship of foreign gods (Rashi to Deut...

Fashioning Jewish Identity in Medieval Western Christendom by Robert s> Chazan (review)

REVIEWS 531 context, however, the absence of focused attention on the prevalence of atrocity in the historyof the region is marked. King mentions the massacres, forced migration and human miserybrought on by war and political fiat, but the seeminglypeculiarand sharedcharacteristicsof the broaderregion in this respectmighthave deservedspecificattentionasa phenomenon. It is certainly a factorwhich, particularlyin its more recent manifestations,will need to be addressedin the context of the BlackSea countries'developing relationswith the EU and NATO. They will also have to be addressed somehow, independently of this, where the weak states of the region (which King notes as a phenomenon augmented by the compromising presence of what Dov Lynch has called defacto statehood) find ways to overcome the legacy of conflict marked by atrocity and forced migration. All this, once again, underscoresthe importance of Charles King's history. It is to be hoped that therewillbe otherswho will engage with it, but it is testimonyto the qualityof thisbook that it will surelystandup to allformsof scrutiny. King'sCollege London JAMES Gow Chazan, Robert. Fashioning Jewish Identityin MedievalWestern Christendom. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York, 2004. xv + 379 pp. Notes. Bibliography.Indexes. ?5o.oo: $8o.oo. ROBERT CHAZAN in his new book analyses the worksof five late twelfth-and thirteenth-centuryJewish polemicists: Joseph Kimhi, Jacob ben Reuben, David Kimhi, Rabbi Meir bar Simon and Rabbi Moses ben Nahman. They were the firstJewish polemicistsin WesternChristendom.Through the study of theirresponsesto Christianclaims concerning the truthof Christianityand the error of Judaism, he unravels the construction of Jewish identity in the face of intense Christianpressureto convert. Chazan, an expert in medieval Christian-Jewishinteraction,and in particularpolemics, providesan authoritative account of a minority response to an aggressive majority. Jewish apologetic emerged at a specific time, in the mid-twelfth century, and in a particular geographical region, what is today northern Spain and southern France. Chazan describes the context of these works:the migration of Jews into Christendom from Islamic lands meant that the centre of the world Jewish population shifted to Christian Europe; and it was the new-found vitality of Christian culture, often characterized as the twelfth-century Renaissance, which led to a new type of Christianchallenge againstJudaism. This necessitatedaJewish responsefrom intellectualleaders:theiraim was to reassuretheircoreligionistsand strengthenthem in theirfaith. For those readers unfamiliar with the earlier history of Christian-Jewish disagreementover the truthof their respectivereligions, Chazan summarizes the key stages in the development of Christian thinking about the Jews. He describes the Gospel accounts of intracommunal Jewish conflicts between Jesus and his discipleson the one hand, andJewish leaderson the otherhand; the innovation of bringing the new religion to gentiles, and thus assertinga displacement of the Jews as the chosen people; and finally St Augustine's influentialvision of theJews as witnessesto the truth of Christianity.He also 532 SEER, 83, 3, 2005 presents the scant anti-Christian arguments of pre-twelfth century Jewish writing: there was no real guidance there on how to deal with Christian religiouschallenge. Chazan maintains that Southern European Christiansled the way in the new missionizingthrustagainsttheJews, thusnecessitatingaJewish response. After introducing the fiveJewish authors and their works, he focuses on the key themes found in their writings.Jewish writers understood that biblical citations used by Christian authors were the foundation of the Christian claims, and therefore they constructed careful counter-claims, based on the Hebrew version of the Bible. The main topic they addressedwas the claim that Jesus was the Messiah. They rebutted the Christian interpretationand provided an alternativeJewish interpretationfor biblical texts that were used by Christians to buttress the Christian claim concerning Jesus. Chazan provides detailed analyses of the biblical texts and theJewish interpretations in question. The Jewish authorsalso rejectedthe Christianclaim thatJewish sufferingwas a resultof sin, that is, of not accepting and killingthe Messiah; instead, they argued that Jews were the servants of God who suffered on behalf of others. They not only refuted the Christian claim that the Church replacedtheJews as the new Israel,but also constructeda positivecase for 'an unbreakable covenant between God and the Jews' (p. I97) and for God's commitment to redeem His people. To counter the argument that Christian success and Jewish failure demonstrated the truth of Christianity, the Jewish polemicists focused on Christiansetbacksand tensionswithin the Christiancommunity, aswell as on...

The Commentary of Rabbi David Kimhi on Proverbs: A Case of Mistaken Attribution

The Commentary of Rabbi David Kimhi on Proverbs: A Case of Mistaken Attribution

The Dependence of Rabbi David Kimhi (Radak) on Rashi in His Quotation of Midrashic Traditions

This article demonstrates that the 13th-century exegete Rabbi David Kimhi (Radak) relied on Rashi as a source for midrashic traditions, in addition to his known use of Rashi as a resource for exegetical interpretations. This reliance shows that Radak viewed Rashi as an authoritative source for midrashic material and formulations. Furthermore, Radak's use of Rashi as a source reveals Rashi's influence on Radak's thought. It suggests that Radak learned the exegetical and pedagogical value of the quotation of rabbinic material from Rashi. Radak's dependence on Rashi can in turn be applied broadly to suggest that Radak did not check all original sources, but rather relied at times on his own memory in conjunction with Rashi's record of certain aggadic interpretations. Radak's quotation of midrashic material from Rashi demonstrates the extent of the availability of Rashi's commentaries on the Prophets and Hagiographa in Radak's environment. While Rashi's commentary on the Pentateuch was widely known, the commentaries on other biblical books were less popular. Specific instances of Radak's use of Rashi as a source for midrashic traditions are investigated and offered as evidence of heavier use by Radak of Rashi's commentaries than has previously been documented.

Shoftim (Judges: Introduction and Commentary) (review)

Hebrew Studies 41 (2000) 283 Reviews Wevers' notes indispensable when working on LXX Exodus and also while preparing the Leviticus volume for the New English Translation of the Septuagint. What I value particularly about his approach is that he allows for the possibility that variant readings of the LXX are ascribable to the fact that the LXX is a Jewish exegetical document. In fact, one hardly picks up any volume of his which does not refer in one way or another to Z. Frankel and/or L. Prijs, two scholars who in the previous century carefully documented the relationship between the Septuagint and haIakhic literature. Dirk L Buchner University of Durban-Westville 4000 Durban, South Africa dbuchner@pixie.udw.ac.za SHOFTIM (JUDGES: INTRODUCTION AND COMMENTARY). By Yairah Amit. Mikra LeYisra'eVA Bible Commentary for Israel. pp. xiv + 337. Tel Aviv/Jerusalem: Am OvedlMagnes Press, 1999. Cloth, $17.78. Let me begin my review of Yairah Amit's Judges volume in the Mikra LeYisra'el commentary series by making an admission which, rumor says, more of my fellow reviewers could make than do: I have not read this book-not, at any rate, from cover to cover. I make this admission with a clear conscience because of the hybrid nature of the commentary form, part introductory material, part reference work. What I have done, therefore , is to read the book's introduction and to use the rest of the book as its owners and borrowers will do, by consulting the commentary, the fifteen excurses, and the eight indexes (to biblical references, extra-biblical literature , textual witnesses, emendations, structuraVredactional terms, religious terms, grammatical terms, and geographical names). My purpose was to get a sense of how useful the volume will be for me-and hence, I hope. for the typical reader of Hebrew Studies. Since I believe this is the first review of a volume of Mikra LeYisra'el in Hebrew Studies. let me take a moment to present the series. It is described in the preface provided by the general editors, Shmuel Ahituv and (originally) Moshe Greenberg, as "modern" and "professional," and on the series title page and the cover of the book as "scientific," that is, grounded in intellectual effort rather than religious belief. But like its American cousins in the Jewish Publication Society commentary series. it sees itself as Hebrew Studies 41 (2000) 284 Reviews very much indebted to traditional Jewish exegesis. Hence Amit's commentary moves easily in this realm, from Targum through midrash to the medievals and beyond. She can cite Rashi and Rashbam as readily as Boling and Burney; given the nature of a Hebrew-reading audience, more so. Thus on the odd use of the Hiphil of »" in Judg 8:16, she quotes David Kimhi's suggestion that it might be interpreted using the standard meaning of the word, citing Jer 16:21 in support; interprets Targum Jonathan as implying an original »"'; and ends by suggesting that the reading of the Septuagint, retroverted to IZM", is the correct one, based on the use of the same verb in v. 7. This is the general plan of the commentary: to treat both the current form of the text and the explanations provided for it in Jewish tradition seriously and respectfully, but to let a contemporary scholarly sensibility be the fmal arbiter. For this reader, it's a satisfying mix. AmiCs approach to Judges, as her introduction indicates, is centered on her understanding of the central core of the book (3:7-16:31) as carefully edited to demonstrate a cycle of sin, punishment, prayer, salvation, and rest repeated seven times under a sequence of ruling "judges." The third "judge" in the sequence is listed in her chart (5) as "Deborah and Barak," an entry that gains more significance when one reads in her commentary to Judges 4 and her excursus on the relationship between Judges 4 and 5 that the identity of the "savior" is deliberately left unsettled (Yael also enters into the picture) so that the reader will understand that God is the real savior. According to her reading, most of the Deuteronomistic terminology in the book is limited to the introduction (2:6...

物語の順序と初期の聖書注解

Muqdam (u) Meuhar is a technique of rabbinic interpretation, which suggests the reversal of the textual order as a solution to exegetical difficulties. The technique was first attested to as an exegetical principle in the Mishnah of Rabbi Eliezer, and later, was used by medieval grammarians, such as Jonah Ibn Janah, Solomon Parchon, and David Kimhi, to resolve syntactical, lexical difficulties of the biblical text.A noteworthy development was, however, that the technique was originally perceived in the Mishnah of R. Eliezer as a solution to problems in the chronological order of biblical narratives. Furthermore, the term, Muqdam Meuhar, was not really attested in Tannaitic and Amoraic sources, despite the fact that the sages frequently discussed among themselves on problems in the order of text.To explain the uniqueness of this exegetical tradition, the present paper will compare the technique of Muqdam Meuhar with the practice of Hysteron Proteron- a similar rule of Roman literary critics-as found in Servius' commentary on Virgil's Aeneid, regarding that Muqdam Meuhar was the rabbinic calque of Hysteron Proteron. In particular, the paper will focus on controversial aspects of the technique as applied to chronological problems in the order of the biblical narratives.

REVIEWS

REVIEWS Get access David Kimhi: The Man and His Commentaries. By F. T. TALMAGE. Pp. viii+236. (Harvard Judaic Monographs, 1.) Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1975. P. S. ALEXANDER P. S. ALEXANDER Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Journal of Theological Studies, Volume XXX, Issue 1, April 1979, Pages 306-a–306, https://doi.org/10.1093/jts/XXX.1.306-a Published: 01 April 1979

David Kimhi: The Man and the Commentaries. Frank Ephraim Talmage

Previous articleNext article No AccessReviewsDavid Kimhi: The Man and the Commentaries. Frank Ephraim Talmage Marvin FoxMarvin Fox Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Speculum Volume 53, Number 3Jul., 1978 The journal of the Medieval Academy of America Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.2307/2855188 Views: 2Total views on this site Copyright 1978 The Mediaeval Academy of AmericaPDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

The Commentary of Rabbi David Kimhi on Psalms CXXCL

The Commentary of Rabbi David Kimhi on Psalms CXXCL

Book Review: David Kimhi. The Man and the Commentaries

Book Review: David Kimhi. The Man and the Commentaries

The Commentary of Rabbi David Kimhi on Psalms cxx-cl. Edited by Joshua Baker and Ernest W. Nicholson Pp. xxxii+190. (Oriental Publications published for the Faculty of Oriental Studies, 22.) Cambridge University Press, 1973. 4.60

Journal Article The Commentary of Rabbi David Kimhi on Psalms cxx–cl. Edited by Joshua Baker and Ernest W. Nicholson Pp. xxxii+190. (Oriental Publications published for the Faculty of Oriental Studies, 22.) Cambridge University Press, 1973. £4.60 Get access The Commentary of Rabbi David Kimhi on Psalms cxx–cl. Edited by Joshua Baker and Ernest W. Nicholson Pp. xxxii+190. (Oriental Publications published for the Faculty of Oriental Studies, 22.) Cambridge University Press, 1973. £4.60. C. Rabin C. Rabin Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Journal of Theological Studies, Volume XXVI, Issue 1, April 1975, Pages 203–204, https://doi.org/10.1093/jts/XXVI.1.203 Published: 01 April 1975

An Hebrew Polemical Treatise: Anti-Cathar and Anti-Orthodox

The Milḥemet Ḥobah (Obligatory War), a collection of polemical treatises published at Constantinople in 1710, contains a tract entitled “Disputation of Rabbi David Kimhi” (Wikuaḥ ha-Ra-DaḲ). The ascription of this work to Kimhi has been a subject of some discussion. J. D. Eisenstein, who published the text in his anthology, Oẓar Wikuḥim, and Salo Baron have apparently accepted it as genuine without reservations. Suler in his article in the Encyclopedia Judaica considered it to be basically the work of Kimhi with interpolations. On the other hand, A. Geiger and L. Finkelstein have completely rejected the possibility of Kimhi's authorship. None of these authorities has brought support for his conclusions.

David Kimhi's Hebrew Grammar (Mikhlol)

Book Review| December 01 1953 David Ḳimḥi’s Hebrew Grammar (Mikhlol) David Ḳimḥi’s Hebrew Grammar (Mikhlol), William Chomsky. Frank R. Blake Frank R. Blake Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Journal of Biblical Literature (1953) 72 (4): 270. https://doi.org/10.2307/3261716 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Twitter Permissions Search Site Citation Frank R. Blake; David Ḳimḥi’s Hebrew Grammar (Mikhlol). Journal of Biblical Literature 1 December 1953; 72 (4): 270. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/3261716 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All Scholarly Publishing CollectiveSBL PressJournal of Biblical Literature Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

The Commentary of David Kimhi on Isaiah. Edited, with his unpublished allegorical commentary on Genesis, on the basis of Manuscripts and early editions, by Louis FinkelsteinPh.D. xcvi + 232 pp. New York: Columbia University Press, 1926. $2.50.

The Commentary of David Kimhi on Isaiah. Edited, with his unpublished allegorical commentary on Genesis, on the basis of Manuscripts and early editions, by Louis FinkelsteinPh.D. xcvi + 232 pp. New York: Columbia University Press, 1926. $2.50. - Volume 59 Issue 3