Amos FRISCH Bar-IlanUniversity CHARACTERISTIC FEATURES OF MALBIM’S INTERPRETIVE METHOD IN THE LIGHT OF HIS COMMENTARY TO I SAMUEL 8* ABSTRACT The article presents characteristic features of the interpretive method of Malbim (1809-1879), by examining his commentary to a single consecutive text — I Samuel 8. The article presents eight such features: Malbim’s questions as background for the commentary, the attitude to the Rabbis, the attitude to earlier commentators, the search for coherence, the perception of the monarchy, binary oppositions, distinguish- ing between synonyms, and psychological interpretation (i.e., Samuel’s motives). Malbim is seen to be an original commentator, in his novel understandings of Rab- binic dicta as in his Bible commentary. RÉSUMÉ Cet article présente les traits spécifiques de la méthode interprétative du Malbim (1809-1879), à partir de l’examen de son commentaire d’un texte unitaire, 1 Samuel 8. On considèrera ici huit de ces caractéristiques: les questionnements du Malbim situés à l’arrière-plan de son commentaire, son attitude à l’égard des rabbins, son attitude à l’égard des commentateurs antérieurs, la recherche de la cohérence, la perception de la monarchie, les oppositions binaires, les distinctions entre synonymes et l’interpré- tation psychologique (c’est-à-dire les motivations de Samuel). Malbim est considéré comme un commentateur original, du fait de son interprétation nouvelle des propos rabbiniques et du fait de son commentaire de la Bible. The primary aim of this article is to present several characteristic features of the interpretive method of Meir Loeb ben Jehiel Michel Malbim, one of the leading Jewish commentators in the nineteenth century (1809-1879). Instead, however, of looking in from the outside, in the somewhat arbitrary * The core of this paper was read at the Society of Biblical Literature International Meet- ing 2013 (St. Andrews, 10 July 2013). I am grateful to the Rector of Bar-Ilan University for awarding me a Rector’s Research Grant, which facilitated my conducting the research for this article. Revuedesétudesjuives,175(3-4),juillet-décembre2016,pp.367-390. doi:10.2143/REJ.175.3.3186069 999162_REJ_2016_3-4_04_Frisch.indd9162_REJ_2016_3-4_04_Frisch.indd 367367 44/01/17/01/17 006:076:07 368 CHARACTERISTICFEATURESOFMALBIM’SINTERPRETIVEMETHOD manner of determining these characteristics and then bringing examples from throughout his commentary, it would be preferable to examine a single consecutive text, and to draw conclusions from within the text itself — which I deem to be a more precise method of presenting what Malbim actually says.1 Namely, we will examine Malbim’s commentary to the narrative in I Samuel 8 of the demand for a king and Samuel’s response. The choice of this single Biblical text led, in turn, to the choice of the secondary aim of the article: attaining a better understanding of this narrative, while focusing on Malbim’s interpretation, and, within the context of an examination of his commentary, giving greater attention to his theological worldview regarding the standing of the monarchy. The narrative recounts the people’s request of Samuel to change the form of government to a monarchy, and the two responses to their appeal: Samuel’s negative response, and that by the Lord that criticizes the request, but allows see below) but nevertheless remains) משפט המלך it after the people hears firm in its desire. This narrative was selected by virtue of its being a veritable “treasure trove” for examining the manner in which commentators contended with various interpretive questions, as well as its being at an important cross- roads in Israelite history: the transition to a monarchical regime, a change which is also of great theological importance. The eight characteristic features of Malbim’s commentary that will be set forth below are of four types. One is “formal” (the posing of questions, that appear in his commentary in a separate section). Two are “technical” (his attitude to the Rabbis, his attitude to earlier commentators), whose very presence is common to (almost) all the commentators, who are distinguished from one another by their behavior within these realms. One characteristic is “ideological” (the topic of the monarchy), and does not necessary find expression throughout Malbim’s commentary to every text, while function- ing as the ideational linchpin in this narrative, and therefore we consider it worthwhile for inclusion in this discussion. Four are “thematic” elements (coherency, pairs of binary opposites, distinction between synonyms, psy- chological interpretation), and are characteristic of Malbim’s Biblical com- mentary as a whole.2 This division into groups determined the order in which 1. In this manner, the scholar cannot choose the best and most convincing (and perhaps exceptional) examples. He rather must contend with what is present in the text that he inter- rogates. This method also has the advantage of reading a single entire text and clarifying the commentator’s contribution to its understanding, which cannot be accomplished by examining a number of examples from different texts. 2. The following earlier studies of Malbim are noteworthy: E. Z. MELAMED, “Malbim’s Interpretative Method” (1968), in ID., BiblicalStudiesinTexts,TranslationsandCommentators 999162_REJ_2016_3-4_04_Frisch.indd9162_REJ_2016_3-4_04_Frisch.indd 368368 44/01/17/01/17 006:076:07 CHARACTERISTICFEATURESOFMALBIM’SINTERPRETIVEMETHOD 369 the characteristics will be presented (with a single exception — for the pur- poses of our discussion, the conception of the monarchy was placed earlier in the discussion, as characteristic number 4). Most of these features are not unique to Malbim, but are dominant in his commentary, and, taken together, produce a portrait of his interpretive way. (For example, distinction between synonyms, which many scholars see as the most prominent feature of his commentary, is not unique to him, but any picture of his interpretive approach would be lacking without it.) In my understanding, Malbim had two underly- ing goals in his Bible commentary, that contends with the challenges facing his generation:3 (1) to demonstrate the thematic and formal perfection of the Bible resulting from its sanctity; (2) to firmly establish the standing of the Oral Law, and that of the Sages of the Oral Law, showing that their teachings are not forced or distorted, unlike the view of some of the maskilim and the Reform.4 (Hebrew), Jerusalem, 1984, p. 443-454; E. TOUITOU, “Between Simple Meaning and Exe- gesis: A Study in Malbim’s Interpretive Doctrine” (Hebrew), Deoth 48 (1980), p. 193-198; S. Z. SCHAECHTER, TheMalbim,HisLiteraryWorkandThought (Hebrew), PhD diss., Hebrew University, 1983; N. H. ROSENBLOOM, Malbim:Exegesis,Philosophy,ScienceandMysticismin theWritingsofRabbiMeirLebushMalbim(Hebrew), Jerusalem, 1988; A. FRISCH, “Malbim’s Bible Commentary” (Hebrew), Maḥanayim 4 (1993), p. 370-379; M. DELL, OrthodoxBiblical ExegesisinanAgeofChange:PolemicsintheTorahCommentariesofR.J.Z.Meklenburgand Malbim (Hebrew), PhD diss., Bar-Ilan University, 2008; A. FRISCH, “Malbim’s Approach to the Sins of Biblical Personages”, JournalofHebrewScriptures13 (2013), http://www.jhsonline. org/Articles/article_193.pdf; ID., “From Distinguishing between Synonyms to Revealing the Coherence of the Literary Unit: On the Interpretive Method of Malbim”,Judaica 69 (2013), p. 393-429. Several of the characteristic features that this article examines — the concept of the monarchy, the search for coherency, and pairs of binary opposites — were, to the best of my knowledge, not discussed in the above studies (except for my article: “From Distinguish- ing between Synonyms”). The characteristics that were discussed in the past, as well, are reexamined here. 3. On the historical background of Malbim’s exegesis, see TOUITOU, “Between Simple Meaning”; SCHAECHTER, TheMalbim, p. 72-78; DELL, OrthodoxBiblicalExegesis, p. 8-23, 66-68, 69-72, 78-80 and passim; FRISCH, “From Distinguishing between Synonyms”, p. 424- 427. 4. An important source for identifying these underlying goals can be found in Malbim’s introduction to the book of Leviticus, where he presents the first synod of Reform rabbis in Brunswick in 1844 as the background for his decision to compose his commentary on the Torah: “It happened in the year 5604 [= 1844] of the Creation […] they assembled to violate religion and laws […] Regarding the Written Torah, which this evil congregation has com- pared to one of the tales of the ancient peoples, and its poetry and sublime turns of phrase, they cast it together with the poems of Homer and the Greeks. As concerns the Oral Torah, למשל ,which was for them a proverb and a byword [i.e., an object of derision and mockery ,from Deut. 28:37], they denied it […]. They [the Reform rabbis] despised its Sages ולשנינה and said that they [= the Sages] did not know the simple meaning of Scripture, that they were unaware of the grammar of the language, and that they followed a twisted and tortuous path, and they were derided and mocked [by the Reform rabbis] the entire day […]”. 999162_REJ_2016_3-4_04_Frisch.indd9162_REJ_2016_3-4_04_Frisch.indd 369369 44/01/17/01/17 006:076:07 370 CHARACTERISTICFEATURESOFMALBIM’SINTERPRETIVEMETHOD 1. Malbim’s Questions as Background for the Commentary The methodology of beginning with a list of questions, which Malbim apparently adopted from Isaac Abrabanel (to whom Malbim frequently refers; see below, section 3), is an important element in his commentary to the narrative