Quick viewing(Text Mode)

Joseph Kimhi's Threefold Priesthood Polemic*

Joseph Kimhi's Threefold Priesthood Polemic*

Miriam SKLARZ Hemdat HaDarom College, Netivot

JOSEPH KIMHI’S THREEFOLD PRIESTHOOD POLEMIC*

ABSTRACT Melchizedek and Ahimelekh, two biblical priests, who are also referred to as ‘king’, grant priestly gifts to a war refugee (Genesis 14:18; 1 21:7). Christian inter- pretation made use of these priestly figures and their priestly gifts in order to estab- lish the new priesthood of Jesus. This paper brings to light Joseph Kimhi’s overt and covert polemic regarding these two priests and their priestly gifts in order to defend the eternity of the Levitical priesthood and that of the sacrificial rite in the Temple.

RÉSUMÉ Melchisédech et Achimélech, deux prêtres bibliques, identifiés également comme « rois », attribuent des présents sacerdotaux à un réfugié de guerre (Genèse 14, 18; 1 Samuel 21, 7). L’exégèse chrétienne fait référence à ces prêtres et à leurs présents afin d’établir la nouvelle prêtrise de Jésus. Cet article vient éclairer la polémique explicite et implicite de Joseph Kimhi sur les deux prêtres et leurs présents, visant à soutenir l’éternité de la prêtrise traditionnelle de la tribu de Lévi et du culte religieux exercé au Temple de Jérusalem.

Introduction: Joseph Kimhi’s Polemic in Kimhi’s Commentary

Joseph Kimhi (ca. 1105-1170) was born in Muslim , but fled with his family in the wake of the Almohad persecutions to Provence and settled in the city of .1 Through his essays in the fields of gram- mar, poetry and biblical interpretation, Provence Jewry became acquainted with Andalusian scholarship, which was largely written in Arabic. He also

* I wish to thank the research authority of Hemdat HaDarom College for their generous support. 1. On his life and literary works, see: Y. Gil, “Joseph Kimchi, Commentator” (Hebrew), Beit Mikra 19 (1974), p. 265-285; Y. Gil, “The Commentaries of Joseph Kimchi” (Hebrew), Beit Mikra 20 (1975), p. 366-377; F. E. Talmage (ed.), The Commentaries on Proverbs of the Kimhi Family, Jerusalem, 1990 (Hebrew), p. 11-25; M. Cohen, “The Qimhi Family,” in M. Sæbø (ed.), / Old Testament: The History of its Interpretation, Göttingen, 2000, I/2, p. 390-395.

Revue des études juives, 179 (3-4), juillet-décembre 2020, pp. 333-349. doi: 10.2143/REJ.179.3.3288801 334 joseph kimhi’s threefold priesthood polemic authored The Book of the Covenant, an anti-Christian treatise which was one of the first two original Hebrew-language polemics.2 His two sons, Moshe and David, continued their father’s literary enterprise by composing Hebrew grammar treatises and Biblical commentary.3 Although they did not produce independent polemical essays, David Kimhi incorporated anti-Christian polemic into his exegesis, evident mainly in his comments on and the Latter .4 Most of Joseph Kimhi’s commentary was lost5 and much of what we have today is quoted in David Kimhi’s Sefer ha-Shorashim6 and Bible commentary. Referred to as “my master, my father of blessed memory,” Joseph Kimhi is mentioned over three hundred times throughout David Kimhi’s commen- tary.7 To the best of my knowledge, no systematic review has yet been per- formed as to the nature of all the references to Joseph Kimhi in general, and in particular the polemical ones.8

2. F. E. Talmage, The Book of the Covenant and Other Writings, Jerusalem, 1974 (Hebrew). The other treatise was Sefer Milhamot ha-Shem (The Book of the Wars of the Lord) by Jacob ben Reuben; both were written around 1170. See D. J. Lasker, “The Sources”; “Polemics”, in R. Chazan (ed.), The Cambridge History of , vol. 6, The Middle Ages: The Christian World, Cambridge, 2018, p. 479, 817. See also: R. Chazan, “Joseph Kimhi’s Sefer Ha-Berit: Pathbreaking Medieval Jewish Apologetics,” The Harvard Theological Review 85/4 (1992), p. 417-432; H. Mack, “From Hidden to Open Dispute: Differences in Nature and Style of Two Jewish Anti-Christian Medieval Polemical Treatises” (Hebrew), in E. Hazan, S. Refael (eds.), Mahbarot Liyehudit: Studies Presented to Professor Judith Dishon, Ramat Gan, 2012, p. 229- 240. 3. Cohen, “The Qimhi Family,” p. 395-415. 4. F. E. Talmage, “R. David Kimhi as Polemicist,” HUCA 38 (1967), p. 213-235. Seidler comments on David Kimhi’s covert polemic in his comment on Isaiah 6:3. She does not accept Levy’s suggestion that two of his interpretations on 1 Kings are polemic. See A. Seidler, “Devia­ tions from the Emphatic Role of Doubling (HaKefel Lechazek) in Radak’s Bible Commentary” (Hebrew), Tarbiẓ 77/3-4 (2008), p. 567-568; B. J. Levy, “Radak’s Pre-emptive Exegesis,” in M. Bar-Asher, N. Hacham, Y. Ofer (eds.), Teshura Le-‘Amos: Collected Studies in Biblical Exegesis Presented to ‘Amos Hakham, Alon Shevut, 2007 (Hebrew), p. 125-146. On David Kimhi’s covert polemic in Genesis see: R. Lancry, Anti-Christian Polemical Exegesis in the Genesis Com- mentary of R. David Kimhi (Radak) (MA Thesis), Bar-Ilan University, 2018 (Hebrew). Lancry (p. 24-25, n. 96) suggests that the comments on Jud. 11:31 and 2 Kings 2:11 are polemic as well. 5. See Gil, “The Commentaries”. His commentaries on Proverbs and Job were recently printed in the HaKeter edition of Bar Ilan University. 6. According to E. Z. Melamed, Bible Commentators (Hebrew), vol. 2, Jerusalem, 1974, p. 746, most of Joseph Kimhi’s comments mentioned in Sefer ha-Shorashim, appear in David Kimhi’s commentary as well. 7. The number of Joseph Kimhi’s mentions in each of David Kimhi’s commentaries comes as follows (according to Haketer cd-rom, Ramat Gan, 2009): Genesis, 19; Joshua, 2; Judges, 4; Samuel, 22; Kings, 19; Isaiah, 76; , 51; Ezekiel, 25; Hosea, 23; Joel, 2; Amos, 8; Jonah, 1; Micha, 5; Nahum, 5; Habakkuk, 5; Zephaniah, 5; Zechariah, 10; Malakhi, 3; Psalms, 54; Chronicles, 5. 8. Melamed, Bible Commentators, p. 745-746 presents nineteen examples without desig- nating a distinct category to polemical interpretation. joseph kimhi’s threefold priesthood polemic 335

An examination of these mentions indicates that Joseph Kimhi’s comments are usually presented as dealing with linguistic or contextual issues.9 Only two polemical arguments of Joseph Kimhi are proclaimed as an “answer to the Minim” [heretics; meaning Christians]. Both are located in David Kimhi’s commentary on Isaiah and concern two cardinal prophecies in Christian theology. One comment refers to the omen revealed to Ahaz (Isaiah 7:14) “Behold, the young woman is with child…” which Christianity interprets as announcing the virgin birth of Jesus: A reply to the heretics in this passage is expounded in The Book of the Covenant which my master, my father of blessed memory authored as an answer to the heretics: and the message of that section expressly contradicts their thesis. …and the other replies are assembled there in the The Book of the Covenant (David Kimhi on Isaiah 7:14).

The other is the key prophecy: “Behold my servant shall prosper” (Isaiah 52:13) which was understood as referring to Jesus’ calling: And now I will expound the passage as did my master, my father of blessed memory in Sefer ha-Galuy and The Book of the Covenant, which he wrote as an answer to the heretics (ibid. 52:14).

However, in fact, these are not the only occurrences in which Joseph Kimhi’s polemic is incorporated into David Kimhi’s commentary. Additional polemic comments are apparent, some omitting his father’s name, others lacking a polemical tone.

Talmage, who discussed David Kimhi’s anti-Christian polemic, noted five occurrences in which Joseph Kimhi’s arguments in The Book of the Covenant served as the basis for his son’s overt polemic in his commentary on Psalms.10 Though, the son does not refer to the polemical passages in his father’s name.

Attestation of the anti-Christian character of one of Joseph Kimhi’s com- ments on Genesis, cited by David Kimhi,11 is presented in Nahmanides’ sermon Torat ha-Shem Temimah: But regarding the creation of man, it is said, “Let us make man” [Genesis 1:26], that is, I [= God] and the previously mentioned earth [...] This is the interpretation of R. Joseph Kimhi, of blessed memory, and this is the correct and good interpretation [...]

9. Joseph Kimhi’s mention in Moshe Kimhi’s comment on Proverbs 25:23 is grammatical as well. 10. Talmage, “David Kimhi as Polemicist,” p. 214 n. 9. 11. Cited in the commentary of David Kimhi on Genesis 1:26; and in his Sefer Mikhlol (Lyck: n.p., 1842 [Jerusalem: n.p., 1966]), p. 7. 336 joseph kimhi’s threefold priesthood polemic

I mentioned the interpretation of the word “Let us make man”, for this is the confounded nation that always asks me, and I knew that you all know this, for the above-mentioned sage [R. Joseph Kimhi] already wrote this.12

Joseph Kimhi’s interpretation to the verse, “Let us make a man as our image” (Genesis 1:26) is presented as dealing with a linguistic problem – the plural form. However, Nahmanides, in his polemic, spells out Joseph Kimhi’s anti-Christian motive.13 This comment is stated in The Book of the Covenant as well.14 In the Jewish-Christian polemic, Jacob is claimed to be deceitful, based, for instance, on his buying the birthright from Esau for the meager price of a lentil stew.15 The research literature indicated the polemical background of ’s comment (Genesis 25:31, also mentioned by Joseph Bechor Shor, v. 34) that Jacob paid full price for the birthright, while the food func- tioned only as the final testimony to the agreement.16 This polemical inter- pretation is repeated in the name of Joseph Kimhi (David Kimhi on Gene- sis 25:34), along with additional apologetic comments that justify Jacob’s conduct with his father-in-law (cited by David Kimhi on Genesis 30:37, 41-42; 31:7).17

12. C. B. Chavel (ed.), Writings of R. Moses ben Nahman, vol. 1, Jerusalem, 1963 (Hebrew), p. 158; Y. M. Dvir (ed.), Naḥmanides’ Commentary on the , Deuteronomy, Jerusalem, 2005 (Hebrew), p. 479-480. For a discussion on the date of this sermon and its purpose, see O. Israeli, “From Torat Ha-Shem Temimah to the Torah Commentary: Milestones in Nahma- nides’ Creative Life” (Hebrew), Tarbiẓ 83/1-2 (2014-2015), p. 163-196. 13. Already in Saadiah Gaon’s commentary on the Torah, the commentator expressly states that he addresses the Christological interpretation of this verse: “And the Christians bring from this verse a proof, according to them, for the Trinity.” (M. Zucker, Saadya’s Commentary on Genesis, New York, 1984 [Hebrew], p. 252). For a discussion of David Kimhi’s commentary on this verse, see: Lancry, Radak, p. 43- 44. 14. Talmage, Book of the Covenant, p. 31-34. 15. See for example J. Rosenthal (ed.), R. Joseph b. R. Nathan Official: Sefer Joseph Hamekane, Jerusalem, 1970 (Hebrew), p. 40-41. 16. D. Rozin (ed.), The Torah commentary of Rashbam, Breslau, 1882 (Hebrew), p. 28 n. 12; A. Grossman, The Early Sages of , Jerusalem, 2001 (Hebrew), p. 488-493; E. Touitou, Exegesis in Perpetual Motion: Studies in the Pentateuchal Commentary of Samuel Ben Meir, Ramat Gan, 2003 (Hebrew), p. 44-45; D. Berger, “On the Morality of the Patriarchs in Jewish Polemic and Exegesis,” in Cultures in Collision and Conversation: Essays in the Intel- lectual History of the Jews, Boston, 2011, p. 236-250. 17. Jacobs claims that David Kimhi was familiar with Bechor Shor’s exegesis but not with Rashbam’s whole commentary. See: J. Jacobs, “Was R. David Kimhi (Radak) Familiar with the Commentary of R. Samuel b. Meir (Rashbam) on the Torah?” (Hebrew), Shnaton: An Annual for Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies 20 (2010), p. 117-135; J. Jacobs, “From France to Provence: The Influence of Ribash on Radak’s Commentary on the Pen- tateuch,” JSQ 26/2 (2019), p. 146-161. To the best of my knowledge, no systematic research has yet been conducted as to Joseph Kimhi’s familiarity with Northern France exegesis. joseph kimhi’s threefold priesthood polemic 337

Marginally to our study of Nahmanides’ implicit polemic regarding Melchizedek (Genesis 14:18-19), we hypothesized that Joseph Kimhi’s com- mentary on Melchizedek (cited by David Kimhi on Genesis 14:20) was written for polemic purposes as well.18 This article will present proof of the polemic nature of Joseph Kimhi’s comment regarding the king-priest Melchizedek, as well as his covert polemic concerning the priest (1 Samuel 21), who, like Melchizedek, was utilized by Christianity to establish Jesus’ eternal priesthood.

Polemic Interpretations Regarding the Priesthood

Melchizedek and Ahimelekh, two biblical priests, who are also referred to as “kings”, grant priestly gifts to a war refugee. “Melchizedek king of Salem [...] Priest of the Supreme God” (Genesis 14:18) offers and wine to Abram after his victory over the kings who had captured his nephew, Lot. Ahimelekh, priest of Nov, gives David, who is fleeing from , the “holy” bread (1 Samuel 21:7). Christian interpretation made use of these priestly figures and their priestly gifts in order to establish the new priesthood of Jesus. This paper brings to light Joseph Kimhi’s overt and covert polemic regard- ing these two priests and their priestly gifts in order to defend the eternity of the Levitical priesthood and that of the sacrificial rite in the Jerusalem Temple. Three Biblical interpretations of Joseph Kimhi, can be seen as a response to the Christian interpretations of the two priestly figures of Melchizedek and Ahimelekh. These three comments will be presented from explicit to implicit.

1. Melchizedek

1.1 Melchizedek in Christian Exegesis

Melchizedek, the first priest stated in the Bible, is first mentioned in Gene­ sis 14:18-20. Melchizedek “brought out bread and wine” and blessed Abram after his victory over the four kings. Abram, in response, “gave him a tithe

18. M. Sklarz, “Nahmanides’ Typological Interpretation of the Encounter between Abram and Melchizedek (Gen. 18-20),” JJS 70/1 (2019), p. 82 n. 49. Lancry, Radak, p. 59- 64, shares this assessment and also points to anti-Christian aspects of David Kimhi’s own interpretation on Genesis 14. 338 joseph kimhi’s threefold priesthood polemic from all”.19 Melchizedek’s name reappears in Psalms 110:4: “You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.” Based on these two sources, Melchizedek is portrayed, in the Letter to the Hebrews 7, as a prototype of Jesus. According to the author, the absence of a genealogical dynasty testifies to Melchizedek’s presumed immortality. Abram’s tithe to Melchizedek (Genesis 14:20) expresses the superiority of Melchizedek’s priesthood over that of Abraham’s descendants. That Melchizedek was uncir- cumcised proves the abrogation of the commandments.20 Melchizedek’s priestly gifts were understood by the fathers of the Church as foreshadowing the elements of the Eucharist: “For Salem is, by interpreta- tion, peace; of which our Savior is enrolled King, as Moses says, Melchizedek king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who gave bread and wine, furnishing consecrated food for a type of the Eucharist.”21 It is also empha- sized that the bread and wine of the Eucharist replace the animal sacrifices that were offered by the priests: “Because the of the Jews sacrificed to God, according to the rite of , not the bread and the wine, but calves and lambs, God said, addressing himself to Jesus Christ, ‘You are priest for eternity in the manner of Melchizedek’.”22 Christianity also made use of the symbolic interpretation given to the bread and wine in : “Brought out bread and wine. Rabbi said: He instructed him in the laws of priesthood, bread alluding to the and wine to libations” (Gen. R. 43:6 [Theodor-Albek, 420]).23

19. The subject of the sentence “and he gave him a tithe from all” (Genesis 14:20) is not explicit, but the common understanding of the scripture is that Abram gave the tithe to Melchizedek. 20. See also: Tertullian, “Adv. Judaeos, 2,” in A. Roberts, J. Donaldson (trans. and eds.), The Writings of Tertullian, III, Edinburgh, 1870, p. 205-206; Justin Martyr, “Dialogue with Trypho, 33,” in F. Horton (ed. and trans.), The Melchizedek Tradition: A Critical Examination of the Sources to the Fifth Century AD and in the Epistle to the Hebrews, Cambridge, 1976, p. 89. For a comprehensive discussion of the origins of the Christian interpretation of Melchize- dek see: Horton, Melchizedek and recently A. D. Roitman, “El misterio de melquisedec en el cristianismo antiguo a la luz de los rollos del Mar Muerto,” Bandue: Revista de la Sociedad Española de Ciencias de las Religiones 10 (2017), p. 199-232. 21. Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 4, 25 (PG 8, 1070-1071), in E. M. Heen, P. D. W. Krey (eds.), Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture X: Hebrews, Downers Grove, IL, 2005, p. 102. Clement (close to the beginning of the third century C.E.), was the first to recall the symbolic meaning of Melchizedek’s priestly gifts. 22. John Chrysostom (second half of the fourth century C.E.), De Melchisedeco, PG 56, 262, Trans. in E. Revel-Neher, “The Offerings of the King-Priest: Judeo-Christian Polemics and the Early Byzantine Iconography of Melchizedek,” in L. I. Levine (ed.), Continuity and Renewal: Jews and Judaism in Byzantine-Christian Palestine, Jerusalem, 2004, p. 289-290. 23. Additional midrashim dealing with Melchizedek’s priesthood are discussed in: J. , Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible as It Was at the Start of the Common Era, Cam- bridge, Mass., 1997, p. 276-292. joseph kimhi’s threefold priesthood polemic 339

This Midrash identifies Melchizedek’s gifts as hints to two rituals deriving from the priestly service; the bread alluding to the showbread given to the priests (Leviticus 24:9) and the wine alluding to the libations that accompa- nied the sacrifices on the (Numbers 15:5,7,10).24 The Midrashic identification of Melchizedek’s bread and wine with the showbread and libations is mentioned in Raimund Martini’s Dagger of Faith, which was composed following the Barcelona disputation. Martini’s ver- sion of the midrash contains additions that do not appear in Genesis Rabbah, and which apparently originate from Rabbi Moshe ha-Darshan. In Dagger of Faith, it is explicitly stated that Melchizedek “sacrificed bread and wine to the Lord”.25 This expanded Midrashic version appears once again in the polemical work of Rabbi , Yeshu‘ot Meshiho, composed in 1498 and directed against the arguments of Geronimo de Santa Fe (Joshua Lorki), who served as the chief spokesman in the Tortosa debate.26 Geronimo de Santa Fe made great use of Dagger of Faith and the Jewish sources pre- sented in it. Abarbanel writes that he proved from the Midrash that “their bread and wine sacrifice are the laws of the priesthood, and that they are the very essence of the new Torah, and that the priesthood was taken from the tribe of Levi and given to the king of the Messiah and those drawn from him.”27 This literary development points to the central place of the bread- and-wine midrash in the framework of the Jewish-Christian polemic. The priest Melchizedek became one of the prominent issues of the Jewish-Christian polemic,28 and a very common character in Christian exegesis29 and art.30

24. Rabbi Samuel ben Nahman, who cites this midrash, lived in the city of Lod during the third and fourth centuries and was of priestly origin (Y. 25b; M. Shevi‘it 31a). Perhaps this midrash was a way to strengthen awareness of Temple worship in a period when the Temple no longer existed. 25. B. Carpazov (ed.), Raymundi Martini, Pugio fidei adversus Mauros et Iudaeos, Leipzig, 1687, p. 840, quoted by: H. Mack, The Mystery of Rabbi Moshe Hadarshan, Jerusa- lem, 2010 (Hebrew), p. 255. The character of this Midrashic version is messianic, typical of the teachings of Rabbi Moshe ha-Darshan, and therefore was quoted in Christian arguments. See: Mack, Moshe Hadarshan, p. 116-117. 26. Yitzhak Abarbanel, Yeshu‘ot Meshiho, Königsberg 1861 (Hebrew), Introduction, fol. 5a. 27. Ibid., ‘Iyyun 4, chap. 2, fol. 69a. 28. M. Simon, “Melchisédech dans la polémique entre juifs et chrétiens et dans la légende,” RHPR 17 (1937), p. 58-93. On the polemic concerning the doctrine of transubstantiation, in which the bread and wine of the Eucharist were said to turn substantially into flesh and blood see: Lasker, “Polemics,” p. 833. The French twelfth century commentator, Joseph Bechor Shor, mocks this Christian belief in his comment to Exodus 32:20. 29. Because of its religious significance, “:1 holds the record for being the OT text most often cited or alluded to in the NT” (L. C. Allen, Word Biblical Commentary, Psalms 101-150, Nashvile, 2002, p. 118). 30. G. W. Ferguson, Signs and Symbols in Christian Art, New York, 1954, p. 54. 340 joseph kimhi’s threefold priesthood polemic

The art historian Elisheva Revel-Neher examined the expressions of the Judeo-Christian polemic regarding Melchizedek in religious art. While Melchizedek is a central character in Christian art, Jewish art ignores him, emphasizing instead the priesthood of Aaron.31 Recently I have demonstrated that this twofold response of Jewish art – ignoring Melchizedek on the one hand while emphasizing Aaron’s priesthood on the other – is also evident in the Torah commentary of Nahmanides, the spiritual leader of Catalonian Jewry in the thirteenth century and their representative in the Barcelona dis- putation. In his interpretation of Genesis, Nahmanides obviously disregards Melchizedek and his gifts while he patently showers affection on Aaron through- out his commentary on Exodus-Deuteronomy.32 These polemical emphases are woven covertly into his commentary, alongside the overt polemic he con- ducted in his Sefer ha-Vikkuah (The Book of Disputation), where he refutes the Christian identification of “Melchizedek” in Psalm 110.33 The manifes- tations of the overt and covert polemic in Nahmanides’ writings led to the examination of similar expressions in the writings of other medieval com- mentators, particularly those of Joseph Kimhi.

1.2 Kimhi’s Polemic Regarding Melchizedek

1.2.1. Overt Polemic Regarding Melchizedek’s Identity (Psalms 110:4) In his polemic Book of the Covenant, Joseph Kimhi comes out against the Christian attribution of Psalm 110 (“a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek”) to Jesus but rather ascribes it to David’s kingdom.34 Kimhi rejects Jerome’s Latin translation of this Psalm which contradicts the Maso- retic text: “for Geronimos the translator distorted the verses...” (p. 47). Jerome replaced Adoni (101:1), referring to a human master, with Adonai refer- ring to a God and ‘amkha (“your people”) (101:3) with ‘imkha (“with you”) referring to this presumed God.35 Kimhi additionally shows that the figure depicted in verses 1-2: “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your

31. Revel-Neher, “King-Priest”. See also: O. Limor, Jews and Christians in Western Europe (Hebrew), Tel Aviv, 1993, Unit 5, p. 20-21. 32. Sklarz, “Abram and Melchizedek”; M. Sklarz, “‘The Holy One of the Lord’: Aaron in Nahmanides’ Commentary,” REJ 178/3-4 (2019), p. 391-410. 33. Chavel, Writings, p. 317. On the sophisticated rhetoric that Nahmanides adopted here, see: R. Chazan, Barcelona and Beyond: The Disputation of 1263 and Its Aftermath, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1992, p. 106-107. 34. Talmage, Book of the Covenant, p. 47-49. Naḥmanides repeated this argument during the Barcelona disputation, contrary to the claims of Friar Paul and King James I. See n. 33. 35. See U. Simon, The Ear Discerns Words: Studies in Ibn Ezra’s Exegetical Methodology, Ramat Gan, 2013 (Hebrew), p. 179-180; Y. Gerson, Criticism of the Vulgate Translation in joseph kimhi’s threefold priesthood polemic 341 footstool. The Lord sends out from Zion your mighty scepter, rule in the midst of your foes”, does not fit a God but rather a human warrior who requires Divine assistance.36 According to Lasker, Joseph Kimhi apparently acquired his knowledge of Christianity while still in Andalusia, from essays written in Judaeo-Arabic. The fact that he refers to Latin texts does not necessarily indicate that he or his Jewish readership understood Latin. Rather, the reference to Latin texts was intended to add credibility to the polemic argument.37

1.2.2 Covert Polemic Regarding Melchizedek’s Tithe (Genesis 14:20) Joseph Kimhi offers a most unusual interpretation to the paying of the tithe during the encounter between Abram and Melchizedek (Genesis 14:18). The common understanding was, that after his victory, Abram gave Melchizedek the Priest a tithe from the spoils. Surprisingly, Kimhi claims that Melchizedek, rather than Abram, is the one who “gave” the tithe. According to Kimhi, the ‘giving’ specified in this verse is not a physical transfer of property but rather, a legal approval of transfer of ownership or of giving possession. This exceptional exegesis is mentioned by David Kimhi (Genesis 14:20): And he gave him a tithe from all – The commentators interpreted that Abraham gave Melchizedek a tithe from the cattle and the property that he had rescued, since he was “a priest to the Most High God”. And my master, my father of blessed memory interpreted that Melchizedek’s words gave Abraham the right to the tithe, for the king of Sedom had said to Abram: “Give me the persons and take the goods for yourself” (v. 21), but Abram had said: “nothing, from a thread even to a shoe-lace (will I take from anything of yours.…)” (v. 23). Melchizedek said to Abram; “You are entitled by right to take the tithe from everything, without your accepting anything from the King of Sedom, for the tithe is yours by right, as for anyone who rescues his fellowman’s property, a tenth being lawfully due to him for his toil in saving it. And this interpretation is correct.38 the Polemical Writings of the Kimchites in the Middle Ages: Modern Translation Insights (MA Thesis), Bar-Ilan University, 2009 (Hebrew), p. 81-89. 36. Like his father, David Kimhi on Psalms 110 comes out against the Latin translation and then shows that the figure depicted in the psalm does not fit Jesus’ image. In addition to denying the reference of the psalm to Jesus, David Kimhi refutes the Christian claims of the replacement of the priesthood and the negation of the sacrifices. 37. D. J. Lasker, “Jewish Knowledge of Christianity in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Cen- turies,” in D. Engel et al. (eds.), Studies in Medieval Jewish Intellectual and Social History: Festschrift in Honor of Robert Chazan, Leiden, 2012, p. 97-109; D. J. Lasker, “Latin into Hebrew and the Medieval Jewish-Christian Debate,” in R. Fontaine, G. Freudenthal (eds.), Latin into Hebrew: Texts and Studies I, Leiden-Boston, 2013, p. 333-347. 38. David Kimhi concludes: “Indeed one must query with surprise the opinion of the commentators: for how could Abram have given some of the King of Sodom’s property to 342 joseph kimhi’s threefold priesthood polemic

Besides the peculiar interpretation of the verb “gave” that is inappro- priate for the syntax or context,39 Kimhi was forced to alter the order of the Biblical events whereas the dialogue between the king of Sodom and Abram (verses 21-24) precedes Melchizedek’s “giving” in verse 20.40

Kimhi’s exegesis to Genesis 14:20 clearly addresses the Christian interpre- tation. In Christianity, Abram recognizes Melchizedek’s priesthood by paying him a tithe. By reversing their roles, whereby Melchizedek pays the tithe to Abram, the hierarchy between them is also reversed.41 This polemic motive is spelled out in the mid thirteenth century by Joseph ben Natan Official in his polemic Book of Joseph the Zealous (Sefer Yosef ha-Mekanneh). Lasker points to the Andalusian-Provençal sources of this trea- tise. Although written in France in the second half of the thirteenth century, much of its polemics derive from polemic traditions of the Official family who originated in Narbonne. Additionally, passages in Joseph the Zealous seem to have been borrowed from the three Hebrew polemics of the twelfth- century: The Book of Nestor the Priest, Jacob ben Reuben’s Wars of the Lord and Joseph Kimhi’s Book of the Covenant.42

Joseph ben Natan Official argues regarding Melchizedek and his gifts: A priest asked Rabbi Joseph: “And Melchizedek the king of Salem brought out bread and wine” (Genesis 14:18), for what reason did he specifically bring out bread and wine? And told him, that it is because the sacrament is made from bread and wine. I said to him: Who was a priest, and who gave the tithes to whom? He said to me: Melchizedek was a priest and Abraham gave him a tithe from all. I said to him: Where have we found the priesthood of Melchizedek? We do not find his worship anywhere. However, Abraham was a priest [...] (Psalms 110:4) and we find that he offered sacrifices. According to God’s word he sacrificed the ram in Moriah and some other offerings. Due to this, the king of Salem brought out bread and wine, in order to give him a tithe of the bread and of the wine.43

Melchizedek? He was unwilling to take it for himself, yet prepared to present it to others?! That is most unlikely.” Ben Manoah (thirteenth century, France) follows this commen- tary. In modern research, R. H. Smith, “Abram and Melchizedek (Gen 14 18-20)”, ZAW 77 (1965), p. 130, also sees Melchizedek as the one who pays the tithe to Abram. 39. Gil, “Joseph Kimchi,” p. 283, n. 93 considers this interpretation as “sophistry and incorrect”. 40. See David Kimhi on Genesis 14:21. 41. Revel-Neher, “King-Priest,” p. 296 mentions this interpretive approach but not in reference to the Kimhis. 42. D. J. Lasker, “Joseph ben Nathan’s Sefer Yosef Ha-Mekanné and the Medieval Jewish Critique of Christianity,” in J. D. Galinsky, E. Baumgarten (eds.), Jews and Christians in Thirteenth Century France, New York, 2015, p. 113-122. An additional parallel between the writings of Joseph Kimhi and Joseph the Zealous is noted by Lancry, Radak, p. 39, n. 131. 43. Rosenthal, Nathan Official, p. 39-40. joseph kimhi’s threefold priesthood polemic 343

Joseph ben Natan openly refutes the Christian perception of Melchizedek’s priestly gifts as symbolizing the Eucharist. He claims that while there is no proof that Melchizedek actually served as a priest, the tells of Abraham’s sacrifices of his own initiative and also as commanded by God. Official argues that Abraham, not Melchizedek, is referred to as “a priest forever” in Psalms 110.44 Being a priest, Abram was given a tithe of Melchizedek’s bread and wine. This creative interpretation unites the gifts of bread and wine with paying the tithe. In this way, it dismisses the Chris- tian symbolism of the priestly gifts and also ensures Abram’s advantage over Melchizedek. Thus, Joseph Kimhi’s unique commentary regarding Melchizedek’s tithe is illuminated in a clear polemical light. Joseph ben Natan concludes his argument with a rhetorical question similar to the one ending David Kimhi’s comment: “How could he [Abram] give a tithe from property that was not his own?”45

2. Ahimelekh

2.1 Ahimelekh in Christian Exegesis

Jesus’ new priesthood is additionally based on David’s encounter with Ahimelekh, Priest of Nov. While fleeing from Saul, David received, at his request, a gift of bread from Ahimelekh: And the priest answered David and said, “There is no common bread on hand; but there is holy bread” […] So the priest gave him holy (bread); for there was no bread there but the showbread, which had been taken from before the Lord, in order to put hot bread in its place on the day when it was taken away. (1 Samuel 21:5-7)

The bread given to David is referred to by the priest as “holy” and was identified by most commentators as the showbread mentioned in the follow- ing verses.46 The already took this approach in B. Menahot 95b-96a

44. Following the Rabbis in B. 32b as well as and Ibn Ezra. 45. Rosenthal, Nathan Official, p. 40 and see n. 38 above. 46. The biblical showbread is mentioned in the context of the and the Temple ritual: “And you shall set upon the table showbread before me always” (Exodus 25:30; see also Exodus 35:15; 39:36; 1 Samuel 21:7; 1 Kings 7:48; 2 Chronicles 4:19). The Hebrew name given to the bread, panim, is explained by its location on the inner table ( Pseudo Yonatan Exodus 25:30), according to its standing before the Lord (Ibn Ezra, Exodus. 25:30), and because of its unique appearance: “It has a face that sees from either side” (Rashi Exo- dus 25:29 following B. Menahot 91a, 94b). According to Leviticus 24:5-9, the showbread consisted of twelve loaves that were laid on the inner table every Sabbath. When replaced by fresh loaves, those removed from the table were given to the priests. 344 joseph kimhi’s threefold priesthood polemic followed by most Jewish commentators in the middle ages and modern com- mentaries. Therefore the common understanding of the scripture is that since the only bread that was in the possession of the priest was the showbread, this is what was given to David: David is invigorated by “sacred things”, by nothing less than the Bread of the Presence. Just as God has looked benevolently on that food, so, the implication is, he will also, “make his face shine” (to use another biblical expression) on this refugee.47

In this literary analysis, Fokkelman also emphasizes the centrality of the phrase “before the Lord”, which indicates the type of bread given to David (v. 7) as well as the position of (v. 8), who will execute the priests (22:18) on account of this bread: “There is, however, not only bread that comes mil- lifne Yhwh, there is also one of Saul’s officials present lifne Yhwh”.48 In Christianity, this holy bread is identified with the showbread by Jesus himself while defending his disciples, who were gleaning on the Sabbath: At that time Jesus went through the grain fields on the Sabbath. And His dis- ciples were hungry, and began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. And when the Pharisees saw it, they said to Him, “Look, Your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath!” But He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the showbread which was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? Or have you not read in the law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless? Yet I say to you that in this place there is One greater than the temple. But if you had known what this means, “I desire mercy and not sacrifice,” you would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”49

Brant Pitre analyzes this source and stresses Jesus’ “three lines of defense”.50 In the beginning of this passage, Jesus sees himself as a new David, who according to Psalms 110 was also a non-Levite priest “according to the order of Melchizedek” and therefore was allowed to eat from Ahimelekh’s show- bread. Accordingly, Jesus also sees his disciples as priestly followers, who were allowed to work on the Sabbath, just like the priests who dealt with

47. J. P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the , vol. 2, Assen, 1986, p. 358. 48. Ibid. 49. Matthew 12:1-8. On this story in the context of the Jewish-Christian controversy see: Berger, “On the Morality of the Patriarchs,” p. 239-240. 50. B. Pitre, Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist, New York, 2011, p. 118-146. joseph kimhi’s threefold priesthood polemic 345 the showbread on the Sabbath.51 Additionally, in the concluding section, Jesus also sees himself and his body as the new temple of God. Origen of Alexandria, at the end of the second century and the first half of the third century C.E., sees the showbread as prefiguring the Eucharist,52 based on descriptions of the Last Supper: “The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, ‘This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.’ ”53 St. Cyril of Jerusalem, in the third century C.E., indicates that the bread and wine of the Eucharist replace the former ritual of the showbread: “In the Old Testament also there was showbread; but this, as it belonged to the Old Testament, has come to an end; but in the New Testament there is Bread of heaven, and a Cup of salvation, sanctifying soul and body.”54 Thus, Christianity interpreted the holy showbread as a pre-figuration of the sacramental bread of the Eucharist, which replaced the sacrificial rite in the Jerusalem Temple. Moreover, the showbread that David received from Ahimelekh demonstrated the eternal priesthood from the tribe of Judah, as well as the abrogation of the commandments for its followers.

2.2 Kimhi’s Covert Polemic Regarding Ahimelekh’s Gift of Bread (1 Samuel 21) Joseph Kimhi once again presents an exceptional interpretation regarding Ahimelekh’s gift of bread to David. Despite the well-established understand- ing based on the context of the verses that the bread Ahimelekh gave David was indeed the showbread, Joseph Kimhi disputes the identification of Ahime- lekh’s gift to David as the showbread. This unusual exegesis appears in David Kimhi’s commentary to 1 Samuel 21:6-7: Holy bread – interpreted by my master, my father of blessed memory: The bread of thanksgiving, that a non-priest can eat in purity [...] And the priest gave him holy – Interpretation: holy bread, in other words: bread of thanksgiving, for there was no other bread there, but the showbread which is removed from the Lord,55 and it is forbidden to non-priests, he therefore gave him the bread of thanksgiving, for there was no common bread there; This is what my master, my father, interpreted. And our Rabbis of blessed memory interpreted (B. Menahot 95b) that the showbread is what he gave him [...].

51. In B. Menahot 95b, opinions differed as to which tasks involving the making of the bread were permitted on the Sabbath. 52. Origen, Homilies on Leviticus: 1-16, Fathers of the Church, trans. G. W. Barkley, vol. 83, Washington DC, 1992, p. 237. 53. 1 Corinthians 11:23-24. 54. Catechetical Lecture 22, On the Mysteries 4: 5. 55. See n. 46 above. 346 joseph kimhi’s threefold priesthood polemic

According to Joseph Kimhi, because the showbread was permitted only to priests and forbidden to non-priests, David must have been given some other “holy” bread whose nature is not mentioned in scripture. Kimhi identi- fies this other bread as the loaves that accompanied the thanksgiving sacrifice (Leviticus 7:12).56 Most of these were eaten by the owner of the sacrifice, and only a few were given to the priest (Leviticus 7:14; M. Menahot 7,2).57 How- ever, considering the literal context, this interpretation is far from adequate. Ostensibly, it seems that this creative interpretation is suggested in order to deal with the prohibition against non-priests eating from the showbread. As David Kimhi mentions, this halakhic problem was already addressed by the Rabbis in the , who dealt with it in two ways: By emphasizing the timing of giving the showbread to David and by taking into account the special circumstances. The Rabbis determined that the bread was given to David after the burning of the frankincense and therefore it was not considered simony, especially considering the life-saving circumstances. Joseph Kimhi’s commentary provides yet another solution for dealing with the same halakhic difficulty of non-priests eating from the holy bread, but unlike the Rabbis, who preserve the contextual understanding that the bread David received was indeed the showbread, Kimhi’s commentary “confiscates” the showbread.58 It can certainly be argued that as a Pashtan, Joseph Kimhi preferred to add another type of bread, not mentioned explicitly in scripture, rather than the complex halakhic circumstances mentioned in the Talmud. However, if he had simply adopted the Rabbi’s claim of “life-saving circumstances” that clearly emerges from the Scriptures, Joseph Kimhi wouldn’t have had to add the bread of thanksgiving that has no basis at all in the Biblical narrative. Kimhi’s conspicuous avoidance from identifying the bread that was given to David as the showbread deals very effectively with the Christian argument regarding David’s privilege to eat from the sacred showbread. Therefore, it seems clear that his interpretation came as a polemical response.

56. Rabbi Levi ben Gershom (Ralbag) in the first half of the fourteenth century follows Kimhi’s approach in his own commentary on 1 Samuel 21:7. 57. On identifying the type of bread given to Saul see A. Rofé, “Wave for King Saul: 1 Sam. 10:4 in 4QSama and in the ,” in M. Bar-Asher, D. Dimant (eds.), Meghillot: Studies in the Scrolls III, Jerusalem, 2005, p. 245-250. 58. Disregarding the showbread in Jewish art as an anti-Christian polemic is mentioned by: R. Talgam, “Similarities and Differences between Synagogue and Church Mosaics in Palestine during the Byzantine and Umayyad Periods,” in L. I. Levine, Z. Weiss (eds.), From Dura to : Studies in Jewish Art and Society in Late Antiquity, Rhode Island, 2000, p. 93-110 (104), cf. Z. Weiss, “Set the Shewbread on the Table before Me Always” (Exodus 25:30): Artistic Representations of the Shewbread Table in Early Jewish and Christian Art Table,” in B. Yaniv (ed.), Timorah, Ramat Gan, 2006 (Hebrew), p. 23-30. Disregarding Melchizedek and his offerings in Jewish art is discussed by: Revel-Neher, “King-Priest”. joseph kimhi’s threefold priesthood polemic 347

The structure of this comment, in which a peshat interpretation is presented alongside a midrashic one without a clear decision between them, is typical of David Kimhi’s commentary.59 This pattern is evident in additional com- ments on biblical narrative with halakhic aspects, where Joseph60 or David Kimhi61 offers a peshat alternative, along with the Rabbinic explanation that harmonizes the behavior of the biblical figures with halakhic practice. However, in our case, the original interpretation of Joseph Kimhi as to the nature of the priestly bread given to David contradicts the plain meaning of scripture, which highlights the problem of granting David the sacred show- bread while no other kind of bread is obtainable. Therefore, it seems that the typological significance of the showbread in Christianity is what provoked the commentator creatively to replace it with another type of bread “which he had devised from his own heart”.62

Summation

This article demonstrates how three commentaries of Joseph Kimhi, con- cerning the priestly gifts of Melchizedek and Ahimelekh respond, explicitly or implicitly, to Christian claims regarding the replacement of the Levite priesthood and the traditional rite. Joseph Kimhi openly disputes the Christian attribution of Psalm 110 (“a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek”) to Jesus but rather ascribes it to David’s kingdom. Kimhi’s comment that Melchizedek, rather than Abram, is the one who “gave” the tithe (Genesis 14:20) refutes the Christian claim of Melchizedek’s advantage over Abram’s priesthood and its polemic nature is evident in the Book of Joseph the Zealous.

59. See N. Grunhaus, The Challenge of Received Tradition: Dilemmas of Interpretation in Radak’s Biblical Commentaries, Oxford, 2013, p. 55-71. The relation between peshat and derash in David Kimhi’s exegesis is also discussed by: F. Talmage, David Kimhi, the Man and Commentaries, Cambridge, MA, 1975, p. 72-83; M. Perez, “Le-yahaso shel Radak le-kabbalot historiyyot shel hazal,” Sinai 92 (1983), p. 71-85; M. Perez, “Le-shittato ha-parshanit shel Rabbi David Kimhi,” Beit Mikra 45 (2000), p. 305-328; M. Cohen, “Hashpa‘ot midrashiyyot ‘al parshanut ha-peshat shel Radak,” in Proceedings of the Eleventh Conference of the World Congress of Jewish Studies, vol. 1, Jerusalem, 1999, p. 143-150 (Hebrew section); A. Seidler, The Exegetical Method of Rabbi David Kimhi (Radak) Based Mainly upon His Commentary on the Books of Samuel and Isaiah (PhD diss.), Bar-Ilan University, 2003 (Hebrew); Y. Berger, “Peshat and the Authority of Hazal in the Commentaries of Radak,” AJS Review 31 (2007), p. 46-49; A. Seidler, “R. David Kimhi between Tradition and Modernity” (Hebrew), Shnaton: An Annual for Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies 24 (2016), p. 341-348. 60. Cited in the commentary of David Kimhi on Joshua 7:24; :23. 61. Grunhaus, Radak’s Biblical Commentaries, p. 134-140. 62. A biblical inlay from 1 Kings 12:33. 348 joseph kimhi’s threefold priesthood polemic

Finally, his exegesis that “confiscates” Ahimelekh’s showbread (1 Sam- uel 21) undermines the basis for Christian claims regarding the eternal priesthood from the tribe of Judah as well as the abrogation of the command- ments for its followers. In this case, even though the polemic motive is not proclaimed, Kimhi’s argument copes very effectively with the New Testa- ment’s interpretation, with which the Kimhis were surely acquainted and with which they were at constant odds. The three interpretations of Joseph Kimhi presented here are integrated into the commentary of his son David Kimhi. In his lengthy polemic con- clusion to Psalm 110, David Kimhi adopts and develops his father’s polemic but without mentioning his name. In contrast, in his commentary to Gene- sis 14:20 and 1 Samuel 21, his father is mentioned explicitly, but his com- ments are not presented as polemical. Joseph Kimhi’s claim that Melchizedek “gave” the tithe (Genesis 14:20) is reinforced in his son’s commentary by a contextual argument that only later on reappears within a polemic context in Joseph ben Natan Official’s polemical treatise.63 Unlike this case, in which David Kimhi prefers his father’s polemical interpretation and declares his reading as the only correct interpretation, in 1 Samuel 21 his preference is not stated explicitly.64 The diversity in the ways he relates to his father’s polemical comments suggests that David Kimhi’s main objective in his commentary to the Biblical narrative in the Torah and the historiographical books is exegetical and not polemical. Following the Barcelona disputation, Nahmanides composed an avowedly polemical commentary on Isaiah 52:13-53:12 besides two other polemical works: Sefer ha-Vikkuah (The Book of Disputation) and Sefer ha-Ge’ullah (Book of Redemption). By contrast, in his Torah commentary the anti- Christian polemic is covert,65 even when commenting on verses extensively discussed in his argumentative writings.66

63. See n. 38, 45 above. 64. Similar to David Kimhi’s comment on Genesis 1:26. 65. E. Touitou, “The Controversy with the Christians in Nahmanides’ Commentary on the Pentateuch” (Hebrew), Shnaton: An Annual for Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies 20 (2010), p. 137-166. Touitou offered two reasons for the absence of a polemical tone in Nahma- nides’ commentary. The first is (according to Nahmanides’ own commentary on Genesis 11:28) that the Torah itself does not discuss at length the matters of idolatry and heretic beliefs. The second reason is since Nahmanides intended his commentary to be relevant for many genera- tions, he did not want to include content relating only to his time. 66. M. Sklarz, “Nahmanides on the Structure of the Pentateuch in light of the Anti-Christian Polemic,” JSQ 26/4 (2019), p. 289-308. joseph kimhi’s threefold priesthood polemic 349

This distinction is also apparent with regard to David Kimhi’s writing, viz. an expressly polemical interpretation of Psalms and the Latter Prophets vis-à-vis his exegesis of Biblical narrative, which seemingly was composed chiefly as commentary, and therefore with generally covert polemics.67 Nevertheless, even when Joseph Kimhi’s comments are presented by his son as solely interpretative statements, their contents and context within medie­ val biblical exegesis indicate that they are part of his polemical enterprise.

Miriam Sklarz [email protected]

67. Lancry, Radak, p. 28, suggests that the covert polemic in Genesis, the last biblical book interpreted by David Kimhi, can be seen in light of the increasing Christian pressure on Jewish communities in Provence that perhaps led to a more concealed and cautious polemical interpretation.

Top View