Judith Kogel PROVENÇAL EXEGESIS AND LE‘AZIM IN AN ANONYMOUS COMMENTARY OF THE 13TH CENTURY ON JOSHUA, JUDGES, SAMUEL AND KINGS In his book published in 1975, David paraphrases in Hebrew the difficulties that he Kimhi: the Man and the Commentaries, Frank finds in the text, he has recourse to Targum, and Talmage wrote: “The history of Jewish biblical he employs vernacular terms. If the quotations exegesis in Provence and Catalonia is yet to be from Targum and the use of vernacular are tech- written” 1. I can not yet write it, but I hope to niques familiar from the commentaries of Rashi add another chapter with this study of a manu- in Champagne (northern France) and David script in the British Library. Qimhi in Provence, the paraphrastic technique The manuscript I want to talk about today, only appears in commentaries by Provençal au- Add. 18, 686, is an anonymous, lacunary com- thors, most notably those of David Qimhi. The mentary on Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings exegete lets the verse clarify itself by structuring which was first described by George Margoliouth it differently, by adding, moderating or ampli- in 1905 2. It was probably written in Provence in fiyng the words. There are indeed two different the early thirteenth century, although the uni- ways to use paraphrases, that of David Qimhi 4, cum in London, may be a fourteenth-century who runs together incipit and commentary to the copy. point that it is sometimes difficult to identify the Today, I would like to identify within line between biblical text and paraphrase 5, and it some of the features of Provençal exegesis, a more traditional way, used by the author of BL whose most prominent exponant was David Add. 18, 686 who presents his commentary verse Qimhi 3. Among the features of the exegesis in by verse, and always introduced by a lemma. this manuscript, we shall be interested above Indeed, our exegete generally begins his all in the structure of the commentary and its commentary with an incipit that he then para- use of Targum and le‘azim; Then we shall try to phrases, as in the first words of Judges 1, 1 6: see whether the exegetical preoccupations of its ויהי אחרי מות יהושע וישאלו - פירוש אחר שמת ,author resemble those of the Provençal school יהושע מנהיגם ולא היה להם ראש וקצין שאלו לבורא namely demonstrating the logic of the text, and מי יהיה ממונה שלהם. an interest in chronology; we shall not talk about the role of Midrash in this exegesis, nor shall we treat the grammatical terminology characteristic “And it was after the death of Joshua that of this commentary because both merit seperate the Israelites asked - After Joshua, their leader, discussions. died, and they had no chief and general, they asked the Creator who would lead them?”. 1. Semantic aspects of the gloss The author added three important words to make sure we understand מנהיגם ראש וקצין ,To clarify the sense of the biblical text the author uses three exegetical processes: he why the Israelites turned to the Creator: Joshua 1 FRANK E. TALMAGE, David Kimhi: the man and 4 Talmage, p. 61. the commentaries, Cambridge, MA, Harvard Uni- 5 The typography of Qimhi’s commentary in Me- shows מקראות גדולות הכתר ,versity Press, 1975, p. 6. nahem Cohen’s edition 2 GEORGE MARGOLIOUTH, Catalogue of the Hebrew clearly how Qimhi runs text into paraphrase and pa- and Samaritan manuscripts in the British Museum, raphrase into text. where ,תדרכי נפשי עוז ,Part II [-IV], London, British Museum, 1905-1935, 6 However see Judges 5, 21 p. 187. the lemma is embedded in the commentary. Also see 3 See MA’ARAVI PEREZ, «Il metodo esegetico di rab- Judges 18, 1. I Samuel 2, 25. bi David Qimhi», in La lettura ebraica delle Scrit- ture, Bologna (1995), pp. 169-201; In Hebrew: Beit Mikra 45,4 (2000), pp. 305-328. 331 MMateriaateria GGiudaicaiudaica XXIII-1-2.indbIII-1-2.indb 333131 111/02/20091/02/2009 111.58.531.58.53 Judith Kogel It is interesting to note that Edouard ,ראש ,who is their chief ,מנהיגם ,was their leader and they asked God Dhorme, also added the verb “to provide” to ,וקצין ,and their general for another leader of the same type, both chief make the Hebrew comprehensible, and called at- and general. In addition, our author changed tention to his addition in a note 9. which was Another process frequently used by both ,וישאלו ,the biblical form, wayyqtol no longer used in rabbinical Hebrew, to a more our author and by David Qimhi, is recourse to and the the Targum, the aramaic translation and first ,שאלו ,popular verbal form, the qatal ,into the mishnic exegesis of the Bible. In the following example ,אחרי מות ,biblical expression In fact, the gloss justifies the author tries to identify a place; he therefore .אחרי שמת ,equivalent the succession of the terms in the verse, a succes- quotes the Targum that he then comments in sion that appeared abrupt, and makes explicit rabbinical language. the nature of the Israelites’ request which was עד אילון ְבּ ַצ ֲﬠ ַננים - כמו שתרגם יונתן עד ֵמ ַישר ַא ְג ַנָייאdirectly linked to the death of Joshua. 11 שהוא כמו אגמייא מן אגם. ורוצה לומר שהוא מקום מישור שהמים נקבצים שם ובלעז ַמ ְר ִשיק One of the most striking feature of this .10 פירוש commentary is the recurrence of the terms as in the previous example, As far as ’elon bexa‘ananim – As Yonathan has ,פירוש .כלומר and introduces a paraphrase and can be translated translated it, as far as the plain of swamps [’agnay- by explanation or sometimes by paraphrase. ya], which is identical to stagnant water [’agmayya introduces an equivalence in Aramaic] from ’agam in Hebrew. And it means כלומר But the word of words, of expressions or of phrases 7. This that it is a flat place where waters are gathered and second expression deals with the semantic as- in vernacular, maresc. pect and may be translated, that is to say. It is not necessary to recall how frequent those two Joseph Seniri, for pedagogical reasons, expressions are in the commentary of David also uses a quotation from Targum to explain -He sug . ַא ְג ַנָייא ,h the uncommon Aramaic term אגמייא .Qim i The following example, illustrating the use gests a synonym , related to the Hebrew and therefore, more accessible to his אגם is taken from the nar- word ,כלומר of the expression the concubine of readers. Without saying so it explicitly, he seems ,פלגש בגבעה ration known as Gibea. During the conversation, the old man ad- to have intuitively understood the existence of ./Let eve- an alternation /m/n רק כל ַמ ְחסורָך ָﬠ ָלי :dresses the traveler rything that you lack be at my expense 8. In his gloss, the author of our commentary transforms The same concern for semantic precision this concise, and according to him, not very in- is also visible in the numerous le’azim, vernacu- telligible expression into a more accessible sen- lar translations of Hebrew words. Multilinguali- -sm, that is the use of Hebrew, Aramaic and Pro , ַמ ְחסורָך ,tence. He therefore changes the noun to lack”, and vençal at the same time seems to be normal for“ חסר ,to a verb of the same root ,to complete”, to clarify our author, and contrary to the above example“ להשלים adds the verb the sense of the verse: he rarely translates his Aramaic quotations in- to Hebrew; in the previous example, one passes from biblical Hebrew to Aramaic, from Aramaic כלומר עלי להשלים כל מה שיחסר לך to rabbinical Hebrew, and finally to the Pro- Which is to say, it is up to me to provide every- vençal, maresc. Evidently, he expected his rea- thing that you lack. ders to be as multilingual as he was himself. 7 See TALMAGE, op. cit. p. 61-62. 11 Vocalization different in the printed edition of See MACK HANANEL, «The Provençal . ַא ָג ַנָייא :Judges 19, 20. Targum 8 9 La Bible, Tome I, L’ancien testament, Biblio- Version of Targum Jonatan on the Book of Samuel», thèque de la Pléiade, Paris 1956, p. 797. Iyyuney Miqra u-Parshanut 6 (2002), pp. 167-183 10 Judges 4, 11. (in Hebrew). 332 MMateriaateria GGiudaicaiudaica XXIII-1-2.indbIII-1-2.indb 333232 111/02/20091/02/2009 111.58.531.58.53 Provençal exegesis and Le‘azim in an anonymous commentary Let us add, however, that recourse to the the mountain] – how could he use a term designa- vernacular languages is restricted to the lexical ting a descent; he should have said ‘they ascended’ domain. The manuscript contains 172 words in since the Canaanites dwelt in the mountain. But it Provençal, the majority of which are precise, is because the members of the tribe of Juda, first -of all, fought the Perizites, whose cities were hi אלמוגים :concrete words: plants, animals, tools gher than those of the Canaanites; and it is only af- וקופים ;coralhs ַ,קוֹרְי ְילש coral 12, transcribed ter having conquered them that they ‘descended’ במלמד ִש ִימיש 13 monkeys , transcribed simis; to engage the Canaanites in battle. -agul , ַא ְגוּל ַיי ָדּה cattle goad 14, transcribed ,הבקר hada. Although apologetic, this procedure is also However, there are also some adjectives one of a rational mind. The opening of the gloss -happy are your men 15, tran ,אשרי אנשיך like with a preliminary question, which is a charac- felitz, and conjugated verbs, but ְפ ִליץ scribed teristic of his exegesis, is as we shall see another he will lap up 16, transcribed , ָילוק :they are rarer proof of it.