Brill Publishing the Arabic Translation and Commentary of Yefet Ben 'Eli the Karaite on the Book of Esther (2008)

The Arabic Translation and Commentaryof Yefet ben #Eli the Karaite on the Book of Esther

tudes surle Judasme Mdival

Fondes par

Georges Vajda

Diriges par

Paul B. Fenton

TOME XXXVI

Karaite Texts and Studies

Edited by

Meira PolliackTel Aviv University

Michael G. WechslerMoody Bible Institute, Chicago

Volume 1

The Arabic Translation andCommentary of Yefet ben #Eli the

Karaite on the Book of Esther

Edition, Translation, and Introduction

Michael G. Wechsler

LEIDEN BOSTON2008

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Japheth ben Ali, ha-Levi, 10th cent.[Sharh Megilat Ahashverosh. English & Judeo-Arabic.]The Arabic translation and commentary of Yefet ben 'Eli the Karaite on the book of

Esther / edition, translation, and introduction [by] Michael G. Wechsler.p. cm. -- (Etudes sur le judasme mdival ; v. 36) (Karaite texts and studies ; v. 1)

Includes bibliographical references and indexes.ISBN 978-90-04-16388-1 (alk. paper)1. Bible. O.T. Esther--Commentaries--Early works to 1800. 2. Karaites. I. Wechsler,

Michael G. II. Title. III. Series.

BS1375.53.J36 2008222.9077--dc22

2008017534

ISSN: 0169-815XISBN: 978 90 04 16388 1

Copyright 2008 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing,IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored ina retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NVprovided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center,222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA.Fees are subject to change.

printed in the netherlands

For my mother,Joan Mildred Wechsler

ne Hirsch

!"

CONTENTS

Preface to the Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiiiAcknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix

part i

INTRODUCTION

Chapter One Yefets Life and Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Chapter Two Yefets Exegesis of Esther . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131. Rationalistic Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132. Compilatory Aspect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353. Mu#tazilite Influence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 404. Relationship to Rabbinic Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

4.1. Midrashic-Talmudic Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 584.2. Saadia Gaon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 664.3. Abraham Ibn Ezra. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

5. Relationship to Karaite Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 785.1. Salmon ben Yeru .him . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 785.2. Later Karaite Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Chapter Three Yefets Translation of Esther. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 911. Literalistic Technique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 912. Alternate Translations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1003. Selective Comparison to the Translations of Saadia and

Salmon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

Chapter Four Other Karaite Commentaries on Esther . . . . . . . . . . . . 1231. Judaeo-Arabic Commentaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

1.1. Salmon ben Yeru .him . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1241.2. Abu Ya#qub Yusuf ibn Nu .h . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1271.3. Judah Meir Taurzi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1281.4. An Anonymous Abridgment from the School of Ibn

Nu .h . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

x contents

1.5. Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 3699, fol. 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1302. Hebrew Commentaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

2.1. Jacob ben Reuben . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1312.2. Abraham ben Judah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1322.3. An Anonymous Byzantine Compilation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

3. Undetermined (Possibly Karaite) Judaeo-ArabicCommentaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1343.1. Ms. JTSA ENA 3336, frag. 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1343.2. Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 742 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1343.3. Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4021. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

Chapter Five Manuscripts Employed for the Present Edition . . . . . 1371. Description of the Manuscripts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

1.1. A/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1371.2. B/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1381.3. L/" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1381.4. P/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1391.5. R1/1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1391.6. R2/2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1391.7. R3/3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1411.8. R4/4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1421.9. R5/5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1421.10. R6/6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1421.11. R7/7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1421.12. T/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

2. Relationship of the Manuscripts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1443. Editing of the Manuscripts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

Chapter Six Some Methodological Remarks on the AnnotatedEnglish Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

Chapter Seven Signs, Sigla, and Abbreviations Employed inthe Edited Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

contents xi

part ii

TRANSLATION

Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319

I. Manuscripts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319II. Primary Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320III. Secondary Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329

Indexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341I. Manuscripts Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341II. Canonical References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344

1. Hebrew Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3442. Ancient Versions of the Hebrew Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3503. New Testament . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3534. Qur"an . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353

III. Early Rabbinic and Midrashic Refrences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 354IV. Medieval Authors ad Esther. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357V. Modern Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365VI. General Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 372

part iii

TEXT

Text. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3*63*

PREFACE TO THE SERIESKARAITE TEXTS AND STUDIES

Interest in medieval Karaisma stream of Judaism which may gen-erally be described as scripturalist, messianic, and, at least withrespect to established rabbinic halakhah, anti-traditionalhas seen asignificant and steady increase in recent years. While Karaism as acohesive religious movement covers a wide range both in time andlocationfrom the ninth century to the present and from Persia toNorth Americathe focus of this scholarly eorescence has been pri-marily on the history and literature of the Karaite Golden Age, cen-tered in Persia-Iraq and Palestine of the tenth and eleventh centuries.It is from this period that Karaisms most prolific littrateurs, adeptthinkers, and influential personalities emergefigures who, as recentstudies have made increasingly clear, impacted the lives and think-ing not just of their fellow sectarians, but of the Jewish community atlarge.

Contributing to this flowering of interest in Karaismand henceto the establishment of the present seriesare three essential factors,the first of which is the significantly increased accessibility of primarysources relating to medieval Karaism. The bulk of these newly acces-sible sources consists of roughly 10,000 Karaite manuscript codices(most of them fragmentary), collected in the first half of the nineteenthcentury from various Karaite communities in the Middle East (espe-cially Cairo) by the Karaite communal leader and bibliophile AbrahamFirkovich (17871874). These manuscripts were eventually acquired bythe Saltykov-Shchedrin (now Russian National) Library in St. Peters-burg and are presently divided, along with several Karaite manuscriptsfrom sources other than Firkovich, into various sub-groups identifiedby the sigla Yevr. (Hebrew) or Yevr.-Arab. (Hebrew/Judaeo-Arabic).Access to these manuscripts was generally denied to western scholarsduring the Soviet period and has only been made widely possible sincethe dissolution of the Soviet Union. Over the past decade and a half thevast majority of these manuscripts have been photographed and mademore widely accessible through various projects undertaken by the

xiv preface to the series

Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts at the Jewish Nationaland University Library in Jerusalem.

Among the various western European libraries containing manu-scripts of Karaite provenance, important collections of primary sourcesare also to be found in the Bibliothque nationale in Paris, whichcontains around 25 Karaite manuscript codices (primarily the biblicalcommentaries of Yefet ben #Eli), and the British Library Collectionsof Hebrew manuscripts, which includes approximately 140 Karaitemanuscript codices written in Arabic and Hebrew script. This lattercollection was purchased from the illustrious bookseller and collectorM.W. Shapira in 1882, who acquired the manuscripts during travelsthrough Ht (in Iraq) and Cairo.

In addition, there exists a relatively small number of Karaite manu-script fragments among those salvaged from the Rabbanite Ben Ezrasynagogue in Cairo, generally known as the Cairo Genizah. TheGenizahs vast contents, the majority of which are housed at Cam-bridge University Library and date primarily from the tenth to the thir-teenth centuries, range across the spectrum of medieval documentaryand literary texts, and hence provide fascinating insight into the lifeand literature of Mediterranean Jewryprimarily Rabbanite, thoughto a certain degree also Karaiteduring a period that was previouslyshrouded in relative obscurity. The navigability and accessibility of thiscorpus has beengreatly facilitated by diligent cataloging eorts over thepast decade. These have so far resulted in the publication of two vol-umes, published by Cambridge University Press, collectively describ-ing and indexing 17,232 important fragments in Arabic and Judaeo-Arabic.

The second factor relates to a certain tendentiousness which hasto some extent characterized the history of research on Karaism. Inpopular Jewish circles, and in the wider academic discipline of JewishStudies, Karaism has often been viewed as an isolated phenomenon.Its literature has not always been recognized as authentic, innovative,or interesting in its own right, and the productive influence it may havehad on Jewish history or thought was by and large dismissed. To acertain extent this position has been shaped by the antagonistic mindsetof medieval rabbinic sources in which Karaism was generally portrayedas the enemy from within, joining Israels external opponents inseeking to undermine the validity of Jewish tradition and threateningit with disintegration and collapse. Over the past few decades, however,there has occurred a paradigm shift in the research and understanding

preface to the series xv

of Karaism as a cultural phenomenon, which is both central and inte-gral to medieval Jewish and Arabic culture. This change is steadilybreaking down the artificial barriers constructed between Karaism andother fields of Jewish and Islamic Studies. This is a slow yet distinc-tive process: as more Karaite sources are recovered or re-analyzed asexpressions of an authentic and creative religious movement, their rela-tionship with other Jewish and Arabic sources and their value for thestudy of medieval Jewish and Islamic history and literature are beingincreasingly recognized and appreciated.

It is this last statement, in fact, which describes the third factorcontributing to the growth of contemporary scholarship on Karaism.Though in one respect a facet of the second factor, it is significantenough to warrant mention in its own rightto wit, the increasing, self-nourishing sense of scholarly curiosity and excitement produced by theongoing revelation of the contents of the aforementioned manuscriptcollections, which are gradually clarifying and restructuring our under-standing of medieval Karaism, its historical roots, its literary back-ground, and, of especial significance, the extent of its socio-economicand intellectual involvement in and influence upon the Jewish andIslamic world at large. The study of the history and culture of the Jewsof the Islamic world in the Middle Ages, and of Karaism as one of itscentral phenomena, is becoming a compelling field of research, bearingthe promise of rich scholarly rewards for scholars of Karaism specif-ically, as well as for those engaged in the wider research of Judaeo-Arabic culture and literature, medieval Jewish literature and history,Arabic literature and the history of Islam, medieval philosophy, or bib-lical exegesis.

These three factors underlying the eorescence of scholarship onKaraism have been recently explored in the introductory work editedby M. Polliack, Karaite Judaism: A Guide to its History and Literary Sources(Leiden: Brill, 2003). They have also provided the impetus for the estab-lishment of the present series, entitled Karaite Texts and Studies. It is ourhope that this series, which appears in association with the series editedby P. Fenton, tudes sur le judasme mdival, will serve as a locus of inves-tigation into medieval Karaism based on the testimony of its exten-sive written remains. For the reasons discussed above, emphasis shallbe placed on the Golden Age of Karaism, though the door shallcertainly remain open to texts and studies pertaining to later peaks ofKaraite creativity in the pre-modern period, such as in the regions ofByzantium, the Ottoman Empire, the Crimea, and Eastern Europe.

xvi preface to the series

The series covers all genres of Karaite literature, written in Hebrew,Judaeo-Arabic, or other languages. Regarding Judaeo-Arabic texts wehave decided to refrain from imposing one script (Arabic or Hebrew)and to leave the question of script open to the authors decision accord-ing to considerations of genre and transmission history. In certain cases,such as biblical exegesis, the earliest attested manuscripts are in Arabicscript, yet most of the transmission history of the texts is in Hebrewscript and, no less importantly, the genre itself is part of a long Jewishtradition of biblical interpretation.

Indicative of its direction, the series commences with an edition,translation, and extensive study of the Arabic translation and commen-tary on Esther (one of the most appealing and widely circulated bibli-cal books among Diaspora Jewry in general) by Yefet ben #Eli, one ofthe greatest littrateurs of the Karaite Golden Age and, without ques-tion, the Karaite biblical commentator par excellence. It is hoped that thiswork will whet the appetite of scholars for the future volumes which arealready in planning for inclusion in the series. Among these, in currentorder of preparation for publication, are:

The Arabic Translation and Commentary of Salmon ben Yeru.ham on theBook of Esther (Michael G. Wechsler).

The Commentary of Yefet ben #Eli on the Book of Genesis: The AbrahamNarratives (Marzena Zawanowska).

The Commentary of Yefet ben #Eli on the Book of Genesis: The JosephNarrative (Meira Polliack).

The Writings of Daniel al-Qumisi: An Edition and Translation (Barry DovWalfish).

The Commentary of Yefet ben #Eli on the Book of Zechariah (Kees deVreugd).

The Arabic Translation and Commentary of Yefet ben #Eli on the Book ofJudges (Michael G. Wechsler).

Scholars interested in contributing to Karaite Texts and Studies are invitedto inquire of either editor concerning the series editorial guidelinesand to submit their manuscript for initial review. The primary focusof the series will be on manuscripts containing an edited text (Hebrew,Greek, Judaeo-Arabic, and/or Arabic), English translation, and sub-stantial introduction. Nevertheless, as a general policy, volumes of amore analytical, comparative, or discursive nature will also be consid-ered for inclusion, depending on their subject matter, focus, scope, andscholarly contribution.

preface to the series xvii

Finally, with respect to the realization of this series, we are indebtedboth to Michiel Klein Swormink, Brills Jewish Studies editor, for hisencouragement and advice throughout the proposal process, as well asto Paul Fenton for his enthusiastic willingness to enable Karaite Texts andStudies to appear in association with the prestigious JM series.

April 2008

Meira PolliackTel-Aviv University

Michael G. WechslerMoody Bible Institute

Chicago

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Among the many individuals to whom I am indebted for providingthe necessary material and advisory assistance that has enabled meto see this work, which constituted my doctoral thesis, to completion,my mentor Norman Golb ranks foremost. It was under his experi-enced, enthusiastic, and ever-challenging tutelage that my knowledgeof Classical Arabic was refined and attenuated to the idiosyncracies ofJudaeo-Arabic and my familiarity with Hebrew and Aramaic sourcesfrom the Dead Sea Scrolls to the Geonimdeepened and broadened.Commensurate with the challenge of his tutelage has been the gra-ciousness of his manner, and in this respect he has been to me amodel not only of scholarly achievement, but also of scholarly com-portment. I am also greatly indebted to my dissertation committeemembers Joel Kraemer, Meira Polliack, and Dennis Pardee for theircontinual input throughout the writing process; their suggestions havebeen incorporated into almost every page of the present work. Sec-tion II.3 (Mu#tazilite Influence) of the Introduction was presented as aseparate paper in November 2006 at a international seminar on thetopic of Rationalism and Sacred Text, 10th12th Centuries, sponsoredby the Centro de Humanidades, Consejo Superior de InvestigacionesCientificas (Madrid) and the Escuela de Traductores de Toledo, andhas benefited greatly from the feedback of the conference participants,particularly from the comments of Professors Haggai Ben-Shammai,Mordechai Z. Cohen, Daniel Lasker, and Sabine Schmidtke.

As regards the provision of both direct access to and/or copiesof manuscripts and other archival resources, I am indebted to DorisNicholson and the sta of the Bodleian Library (Oxford), BinyaminRichler and the sta of the Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manu-scripts at the Jewish National and University Library (Jerusalem), JerrySchwarzbard and the Special Collections sta at the Jewish TheologicalSeminary of America (New York), the sta of the Taylor-SchechterGenizah Research Unit at Cambridge University Library, the sta ofthe British Library (London), the sta of the Bibliothque nationale(Paris), the sta of the Rijks Universiteitsbibliotheek (Leiden), the sta

xx acknowledgements

of the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Orientabteilung, and the sta of theUniversitetsbibliothek in Lund. My gratitude is also due to Joe Cataiofor his tireless and consistently successful work in filling the multitudeof interlibrary loan requests that I submitted to him.

A deep debt of gratitude is owed to my wife Lydia. It was on accountof her patient support, enthusiasm, and devotion that I was able toapply both the time and attention needed to bring this work to atimely completion. My gratitudeedged with apologymust also goout to my children, Avi and Elsie, for bearing with my remoteness, bothphysical and attentional, during the writing process. To my parents aswell I shall be forever in debt for instilling within me those intellectualand disciplinary propensities that, over the course of time and variedinfluence, have led to my undertaking and enjoyment of such scholarlyendeavors as this. It is, however, to the One who has sustained methrough the completion of this endeavor that my greatest debt is due,and it is to Him, ultimately, that the present work is dedicated.

part i

INTRODUCTION

chapter one

YEFETS LIFE AND WORKS

Like many of the Jerusalem Karaites of his day, Yefet ben #Eli ha-Levi,known by his full Arabic name as Abu #Al .Hasan ibn #Al al-Law1

al-Ba.sr,2 would appear to have been an eastern migrspecifically,as suggested by the nisba al-Ba.sr, from the city of Ba.sra in south-eastern #Iraq.3 He was active within the prominent Karaite circle ofthe teachers of the migrs to Jerusalem (mu#allimu "l-maqadisa) for allor most of the second half of the tenth century,4 and was still alive inthe first decade of the eleventh century, as implied by the commen-dation ayyadahu allah (God support him!) following his name in Ms.BL Or. 2554, written in A.H. 395 (= 1004/5 C.E.),5 as well as by the

1 In place of this Arabicized nisba is also attested, at the head of his name, theArabic lexical equivalent al-Imam (Bargs, Excerpta, pp. vvi).

2 Yefets son Levi ha-Levi (Abu Sa#d), in his muqaddima to # , refers tohimuniquely, apparently, in the extant literatureas $% (see Pinsker, Geschichte,I, p. 169; II, p. 64).

3 On the significance of Ba.sra as a center of both Muslim and Jewish learning,cf. Ashtor, Basra; and Pellat, al-Ba.sra. For other biographical discussions of Yefetcf., in addition to the introductions of the various editions listed in the bibliography,Ankori, Karaites, p. 545; Ben-Shammai, Edition, pp. 2931; Broyd, Japheth; Frank,Search, pp. 1415; Frst, Geschichte, pp. 124140; Gil, History, pp. 78889; Gottlober,History, pp. 72, 181; Grtz, History, pp. 31314; Lehrman, Jephet; Mann, Texts, pp. 3032; Nemoy, Anthology, pp. 8384; Neubauer, Bibliothek, pp. 1518; Pinsker, Geschichte, I, pp.8788, 169; II, pp. 18185; Polliack, Tradition, pp. 3745; Poznanski, Opponents, pp. 2030; Schur, Karaites, pp. 3839; Skoss, Jafet; Steinschneider, Literatur, pp. 8184; idem,bersetzungen, pp. 94142; Tamani, Tradizione, pp. 2729; and Vajda, Commentaires, p.115.

4 See Mann, Texts, pp. 3031, 95, citing #Eli ben Israel Alluf (Abu "l- .Hasan #Al ibnIsra"l), who identifies Yefet as a peer of (Abu Ya#qub Yusuf) ibn Nu .h and Abu "l-Surri(#Al) ibn Zu.ta, viz.: "$&" '( %" "$&" ))) * * %+&" &"$&,". See also al-Ht, Tartb, p. 433: (-% +$ ) "$ ,+ "$ "$&" ))) * .

5 On this reading of the date in the colophon of the Ms., which contains Yefetscommentary on Ruth and Song of Songs, see Hoerning, Manuscripts, p. 21, and Margo-liouth, Catalogue, pp. 224, followed by, inter alios, Ben-Shammai, Edition, p. 29; idem,Genesis, p. 192; Mann, Texts, p. 31; Nemoy, Anthology, p. 83, n. 1; idem, Karaites, p.605a; Schorstein, Rth, p. 11; and Tamani, Tradizione, p. 29. Gil (History, p. 789), onthe other hand, reads the date as A.H. 375 (= 985/6 C.E.). The former reading, how-ever, is preferable given the commentarys compositional date range of A.D. 9901010

4 chapter one

commendation " * (God sustain and preserve him!),applied to him by his son Levi ha-Levi (Abu Sa#d6) in his Book of Pre-cepts (,&() %), composed in A.H. 397 (= 1006/7 C.E.).7 Consid-ering, moreover, that Yefet may have engaged in literary polemics withSaadia Gaon (d. 942) while he was still alive,8 it would seem reasonableto set the minimum terminus ad quem of his lifetime at ninety years.9

As a writer Yefet was both prolific and influentiala combina-tion which, among later Karaites, earned him such eminent titles asthe prince (#),10 the distinguished elder (", " .#"),11 thenoble jurist (", "" ),12 the wondrous sage (" & *),13 the

(see Margoliouth, Daniel, p. v; Pinsker, Geschichte, II, p. 88; and, albeit advancing themore specific range of A.D. 988c. 990, Ben-Shammai, Edition, pp. 2931. See alsoSchenker (Danielkommentars, esp. p. 25), who suggests that Yefet composed two ver-sions of this commentary, one in 980 and the other in 988, on which cf. Lehrman,Jephet, pp. 23334).

6 Wrongly referred to among later writers as simply Sa#d or Sa#adia as well as AbuHashim (Pinsker, Geschichte, I, pp. 119, 169), in the last instance due to the confusionof Abu #Al (Yefet) and his son with the prominent 9th10th c. Mu#tazilite figures Abu#Al al-Jubba" and his son Abu Hashim (see Gimaret, Mu#tazila, p. 785a.), both ofwhom are mentioned by the Karaite Joseph b. Abraham (Abu Ya#qub Yusuf al-Ba.sr)in his Kitab al-Mu.htaw (see Pinsker, Geschichte, I, p. 119; Poznanski, Opponents, p. 42;Steinschneider, Literatur, p. 84, n. 1; Vajda, Mu.htaw, p. 52).

7 See Pinsker, Geschichte, II, pp. 8788. Although the commendation (= &*

"", May God have mercy on him!)normally reserved for the deadis alsoapplied to Yefet in this passage, Pinsker explains such as either an ill-placed scribalinsertion or a rare instance of application to a living person. It should also be noted, infavor of this terminus ad quem for Yefet in the early 11th century, that, in at least two placesin his commentaries (ad & # and Joel), he quotes Hai Gaon, whose writings inall likelihood appeared no earlier than 994 (see Pinsker, Geschichte, II, pp. 14851, 183;Lehrman, Jephet, p. 232).

8 See Pinsker, Geschichte, I, p. 20, n. 1; II, p. 88; yet cf. idem, I, p. 169; II, p. 37 (citedby Mann, Texts, p. 25, n. 46); and Mann, ibid., p. 31.

9 Cf. the following suggested times of Yefets birth: 910915 (Harkavy, tentatively,apud Grtz, History, p. 313, n. ( ; 91520 (Auerbach, Proverbiorum, p. 2; Bargs, Canticum,p. ii); and c. 920 (Frst, Geschichte, p. 124). See also Pinsker, Geschichte, II, p. 182, whosuggests a lifespan of approximately 95 years; and Gnzig, Proverbien, p. 16, who posits aheyday of 9401008.

10 Margoliouth, Daniel, p. (#, which, however, may also represent "#, thusmodifying the preceding &).

11 Ms. JTSA ENA 219 (no. 3356), vol. 1, fol. 2v (", " "$" .#"); vol. 2, fol. 1v;Ms. BL Or. 2399, fol. 1r (apud Margoliouth, Catalogue, p. 202b); Ms. BL Or. 2400, fol. 1r(apud Margoliouth, ibid., p. 214b).

12 Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 142, title page (apud Batat, p. 42). On the use of Heb. "" in the sense of Ar. faqih, cf. Mann, Texts, p. 151, n. 56.

13 Ms. Lichaa 10 (Lausanne [private collection]; see sec. V.1.3.), fol. 47v; Ms. BL Or.2468, fol. 106v (apud Margoliouth, Catalogue, p. 201a); Ms. BL Or. 2514, fol. 119v (apudMargoliouth, ibid., p. 223b); Bargs, Canticum, p. .

yefets life and works 5

discerning sage ( *),14 the perfect sage ("# *),15 thegreat sage of Israel ("# "/ *),16 the fortress, the tower("/& ($&),17 the crown of our head (# '$ [Lam. 5:16]),18

the great teacher ("/ "#&,19 / &"&,20 or / 21), resplen-dent teacher ((& "#&),22 the teacher of the Diaspora ("#&

"/),23 and the chief of the interpreters ( #).24 Among hisknown works are the following:25

i. Commentaries (designated tafasr or shuru.h), in Arabic, on all26 thebooks of the Hebrew Bible, including comprehensive Arabic

14 Ms. BL Or. 2400, fol. 1r (apud Margoliouth, Catalogue, p. 214b).15 Pinsker, Geschichte, II, p. 19.16 Ms. BL Or. 2501, fol. 251r (apud Margoliouth, Catalogue, p. 209a). See otherwise Ms.

BN hb. 294, colophon (apud Bland, Ecclesiastes, p. xxiv): " & "/ *; whereassimply "/ * in Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 1846, fol. 1r; Ms. BL Or. 2502, fol. 1v (apudMargoliouth, ibid., p. 209b); and Bargs, Excerpta, p. 1.

17 Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 155, fol. 1r; Margoliouth, Daniel, p. ("/& ($&).18 Ms. BL Or. 2468, fol. 106v (apud Margoliouth, Catalogue, p. 201a).19 Margoliouth, Daniel, p. ; Ms. BL Or. 2469, fols 33r, 35r (apud Margoliouth,

Catalogue, p. 199ab); Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 117, colophon (apud Batat, Catalogue,p. 38).

20 Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 142, title page (apud Batat, Catalogue, p. 42); Hadassi,Cluster, fol. 84a (217) (see also Dinur, Diaspora, p. 314 [14]); Pinsker, Geschichte, II, p. 19.

21 Ms. Lichaa 10, fol. 47v; Ms. BL Or. 2468, fol. 106v (apud Margoliouth, Catalogue, p.201a); Ms. BL Or. 2514, fol. 119v (apud Margoliouth, ibid., p. 223b); Bargs, Canticum, p..

22 Ms. BL Or. 2472, fol. 147v (apud Margoliouth, Catalogue, p. 202a). See also "#&(& in Ms. BL Or. 2514, fol. 119v (apud Margoliouth, ibid., p. 223b), and Bargs,Canticum, p. .

23 Skoss, Jafet, col. 754; Lehrman, Jephet, p. 233.24 Ms. BL Or. 2513, fol. 45r (apud Margoliouth, Catalogue, p. 224b).25 We have omitted from this list the collection of four polemical poems attributed

to Yefet and directed against the Rabbanite Jacob ben Samuel (published by Pinsker,Geschichte, II, 1924) since, as discussed by Mann, Texts, pp. 2628, the real author isprobably Sahl ben Ma.slia .h (see also Nemoy, Anthology, p. 84, n. 2; idem, Epistle, pp.14546; although cf. Sokolow, Deuteronomy, pp. xxxivv). By the opposite token, thereseems to us a slight possibility that Yefet is to be identified as the author of the Refutation(naq.d) of (Abu Ya#qub Yusuf) ibn Nu.h, mentioned by al-Ht (Tartb, pp. 433, 438), for, thoughthis work is attributed by al-Ht to the teacher Abu #Al ("$ "$&"), whichdesignation he earlier applies to an otherwise unknown scholar distinct from Yefet (pp.43233: "$ "$&" #" ($ " ," "$ ), he later refersto Yefet by that same designation (p. 433: "$ "$&" $% "$&"% / " .#" "$&).

26 Cf. the statement of Sim .hah Isaac Luzki, apud Mann, Texts, p. 1414: " *,&

" "$ # * "$ & " ( =) $ 0",) $ "$ && ", ,& + )" ( " "/ ,& % * )$ " "

([$=]. All of Yefets commentaries are fortuitously extant, though thereis some question about his commentary on Lamentations, which, though excepted by

6 chapter one

translation (tarjama) of the Hebrew text.27 Both of these compo-nents (i.e., commentary and translation) were, as will be discussedin section III.1 below, produced together and intended to be com-plementary. It has been suggested, moreover, in view of the diver-gence between the extant Mss of Yefet and citations by Ibn Ezra,that Yefet completed a second recension of his entire biblicalcommentary,28 yet the evidence for this from the Mss of Yefetis wanting, with the exception of that which may be internallydeduced from his commentaries on Daniel,29 the Pentateuch, and,perhaps, Psalms.30

ii. A Book of Precepts (kitab [al-]shara"i#[?]), mentioned by Sim .hah IsaacLuzki31 and Solomon b. David,32 as well as by Yefet himself in hiscommentary on Leviticus and in his comments ad 1Sam. 20:27and Daniel 10:3.33 Insofar as Yefets biblical commentaries were, asshown by Marwick, composed in sequential order of the canon,this book would have been among his earlier works, though com-posed after his commentary on Genesis, wherein his intention toundertake such a work is expressed.34 That this work was indeedcomposed in Arabic, as surmised by Poznanski,35 is now con-firmed by the identified fragments of it in the Second FirkovitchCollection.36

some (cf. Marwick, Order, p. 449; Steinschneider, Literatur, p. 82), is tentativelyidentified in one Ms. by Adler, Catalogue, p. 22 (see also Tamani, Tradizione, p. 71).

27 An inventory of all extant Mss of Yefets commentaries (and translation) knownfrom published sources was published in 1983 by Tamani, Tradizione, pp. 4773,from which, consequently, were excluded the majority of Yefet Mss in the Firkovitchcollections, excepting those few noted by Steinschneider, Literatur, pp. 8184. Of theselatter see now, in addition to our inventory of Esther Mss in section V.1.512 below, thecatalogue of Genesis Mss prepared by Batat, Catalogue.

28 So Lehrman, Jephet, pp. 23334.29 See Schenker, Danielkommentars, pp. 2325.30 On these latter two see Poznanski, review, p. 306, idem, Opponents, p. 21; idem,

Writings, p. 249, Steinschneider, Literatur, p. 81. Cf., however, Ben-Shammai, Edi-tion, pp. 3132, and Polliack, Tradition, p. 38, n. 4.

31 See the citation in n. 25 above.32 Sklare, Compositions, p. 131.33 On these references by Yefet see Sklare, Compositions, p. 131, n. 13.34 See Sklare, Compositions, pp. 13233.35 Apud Steinschneider, Literatur, p. 341 (ad p. 84), contra idem, p. 84, n. 3, albeit more

tentatively in bersetzungen, p. 942; and Pinsker, Geschichte, II, p. 183.36 See Sklare, Compositions, pp. 13132, n. 14, to which list should be added

fol. 2 of Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 3312, otherwise containing Yefets commentary onGenesis (Batat, Catalogue, p. 55). Gottlober (History, p. 181) calls attention to a work


iii. A Book of Prayers for the Entire Year (kitab f "l-.salawat li-.tul ayyam al-sana), apparently written in Arabic,37 seeing that he refers to itunder the aforementioned Arabic title in his Book of Precepts.38 Thiswork, presently not extant, would also have been composed atsome time prior to his commentary on Leviticus, in which his Bookof Precepts, as a finished work, is mentioned.

iv. A Book of Refutation (kitab al-radd) of Saadia Gaon, presently notextant, mentioned by Yefet as a forthcoming project in his com-ment ad Gen. 1:14 and, as a completed work, in his comment adExod 35:3 and in his Book of Precepts.39

v. A grammatical work treating exchangeable letters (a.hruf al-ibdal), men-tioned by Yefet as a completed work in his comment ad Lam.1:14.40 This work is presently not extant.

vi. A book entitled #, perhaps of a grammatical nature,41

mentioned by Yefets son Levi ha-Levi (Abu Sa#d).42 This work,apart from Levis indirect citation,the content of which is appar-ently distinct from that of the previous work,is as yet non-extant,unless it is to be identified with the anonymous work published byKhan.43

attributed to Yefet by Hadassi (Cluster, fol. 84ab [21719]), consisting of 36 questionsand answers about sacrifice and Passover, which are most likely excerpted from his Bookof Precepts.

37 Contra Steinschneider, Literatur, p. 84, n. 3, citing the work, per Ms. BN 6707,under the Hebrew title "

$ (see also the reference to such by Sim .hah IsaacLuzki in n. 25 above).

38 See Sklare, Compositions, p. 133, n. 19.39 For the text of these first two references see Pinsker, Geschichte, II, p. 20, n. 1;

Poznanski, Opponents, p. 21; for the last see Sklare, Compositions, pp. 13233, n. 17.40 Munk, Notice, p. 312, n. 1.41 So Frst (Geschichte, pp. 126; Anmerkungen und Nachweise [Vierter Abschnitt],

p. 4, n. 88), citing both the grammatical nature of Levis citation from this work (seePinsker, Geschichte, II, p. 65) and the fact that this same title is applied to a grammaticalwork by Ibn Ezra. The identification as a grammatical work is nonetheless considereddubious by Steinschneider (Literatur, p. 84, n. 3) and Skoss (Jafet, col. 759), andcompletely dismissed (unnecessarily, in our view) by Broyd, Japheth, p. 73b.

42 Pinsker, Geschichte, II, pp. 65, 184.43 I.e., Text 1 in Khan, Texts, pp. 13173. Khans dismissal of the possibility (p. 17),

originally presented by W. Bacher (apud loc. cit.), that Yefet is the author/source ofthis work is hardly justified, seeing that his two main reasons for such dismissal areunfoundedviz., 1) that there is no source that attributes a grammatical work toYefet, and 2) that the scholar upon whose statements the work is based is identifiedas Sa"d, and Yefet is not referred to elsewhere as Sa"d. However, in introducing thecitation from #, Levi refers to his father as Sa"d Yefet (see also n. 2 above).

8 chapter one

vii. A work entitled Kalam, perhaps of a liturgical nature, extant in atleast one Ms.44

viii. Three religious poems (' ), one of which bears the acrostic %*," "$, one "$ %*, and one %*.45

Yefets translation and commentary on Esther, which is part of the firstand most substantial of his works noted above, commends itself on sev-eral counts to those interested in such literaturewhether the parame-ters of this interest be medieval Karaism, medieval Jewish scholarship,or biblical scholarship generally. Among the medieval Karaites, Yefetsrepresents one of the earliest extant endeavors in Arabic translationand systematicor continuous46exegesis of Esther, preceded only, andin both cases partially, by the translation and commentary of Salmonben Yeru .him (secs. II.5.1; IV.1.1). As is generally true of the medievalKaraites, Yefet adheres to a consistently rationalistic method of exe-gesis (sec. II.1), though at the same time exhibiting a unique eclec-ticism in his probing attention to background issuesencompassingvarious facets of history, culture, and religion, his consideration ofalternate views (sec. II.2), and a theological perspective clearly sympa-thetic to, if not influenced by, the views of the Islamic Mu#tazila (sec.II.3). Nor does he refrain from adopting views which agree with thoseexpressed in Rabbanite sources otherwise disparaged by himself andhis peers where such views fit within the strictures of his rationalisticapproach (sec. II.4.12). In consequence of this eclecticism and the acu-men of his exegesis, Yefets commentary on Estheras his biblical com-mentaries generallycame to occupy a principal, if not unparalleled,position within the history of later Karaite exegesis, as evidenced by

44 Viz., Ms. 250 in the collection of H. Fischl, Berlin (Steinschneider, Literatur, p. 84;Tamani, Tradizione, p. 39). The liturgical nature of the content of this Ms., whichwe have not examined, is questionably proposed by Steinschneider, ibid. (cf. Broyd,Japheth, p. 73a; Skoss, Jafet, col. 759; and Tamani, ibid.).

45 On all three see Pinsker, Geschichte, II, p. 181, as well as, on the second, idem,pp. 13839. It may be possible that the second piyy.t, which is found in (* % (onwhich see idem, pp. 13740) and which we have been unable to check, also bears thenisba ,", since Pinsker fails to mention that this is part of the acrostic in the first.Editions have appeared of the first (Bargs, Excerpta, pp. xxiiiiv; Mann, Texts, pp. 3132; Davidson, Thesaurus, p. 244 [482]; Dinur, Diaspora, p. 305 [11; partial]; translatedinto English by Nemoy, Anthology, pp. 1078) and last (Pinsker, Geschichte, II, p. 181, n. 2;Margoliouth, Catalogue, p. 204b). The total of five poems attributed to Yefet by Tamani(Tradizione, p. 39) includes the four polemical piyy.tim most likely authored by Sahlben Ma.slia .h (see n. 25 above) and the first of the three noted above.

46 I.e., section-by-section, verse-by-verse treatment, on which see Polliack, Tradition,pp. 1516, 38.


both the number of extant copies of his work47 as well as the discern-able influence thereof upon later Karaite writers (sec. II.5.2).

Among the Rabbanites, Yefets work on Estheras also that ofSalmon ben Yeru .himis preceded by that of Saadia Gaon, whosetranslation (Tafsr48) of Esther, due to its great popularity among Arabic-speaking (especially Yemenite) Jewry,49 is attested by multiple Mss inits entirety, though his commentary only in part.50 Only Saadia,

47 The total of 11 dierent Mss of Yefets commentary on Esther (see sec. V.1.111) is,as far as we are aware, greater than that attested for any other Karaite commentaryon this book, the next largest number being that of Salmons commentary, which,although extant in 10 separately catalogued fragments, are representative of only fourdierent Mss (see sec. IV.1.1). As to the rest of Yefets exegetical corpus, the FirkovitchCollections, as in the case of his commentary on Esther, contain a significantif notthe majorityportion of manuscript testimony (for the most part lacking from theinventory of Tamani, Tradizione, pp. 4775), a listing of which is kept at the Instituteof Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts in Jerusalem. Thus, e.g., of his commentary onGenesis, 48 Mss have now been identified, 38 of which are Firkovitch Mss (Batat,Catalogue, pp. 1677); of his commentary on Judges (currently in preparation bythe present author), 20 Mss (including one Hebrew translation) have been identified,17 of which are Firkovitch Mss; and of his commentary on Kings, 25 Mss have beenidentified, 20 of which are Firkovitch Mss (inventories of the latter two commentariessupplied by D. Sklare in a personal communication).

48 On Saadias use of this term, rather than tarjama, as reflective of the self-con-tained, interpretive nature of his translation, see Malter, Saadia, pp. 14245; Polliack,Tradition, pp. 8687. On Saadias occasional usage of the term tafsr in reference to hiscommentaryor, perhaps, his commentary and translation together, which collectivework he otherwise designates by the term #ibara (see the quote in n. 51 below)seeMalter, Saadia, p. 325; Polliack, ibid., pp. 7980; Ratzaby, Esther, p. 1154.

49 See Malter, Saadia, pp. 14245; Ratzaby, Esther, p. 1154; idem, Fragments, p.193 [1].

50 For editions of the Tafsr see Ratzaby, Fragments, p. 193 [1], n. 1. Of thecommentary, 15 manuscript fragments have been identified and published by Ratzabyas follows: Bible: one frag. ad 1:10; Commentary: two frags ad 1:1012, 22; Esther:six frags ad the intro., 1:12; 4:514; 7:56; 8:14, 9:1319; Fragments: six frags ad1:16, 22; 2:2023; 3:12, 45 (one frag., too damaged to be usefully published, issupposed to contain partial comm. ad chaps 34). In the course of our research for thepresent edition, moreover, we have identified the following seven additional fragmentsof Saadias Esther commentary:

i. Ms. JTSA ENA 3148 (shelf mark 7632), frags 35, ad 9:16, 1113.ii. Ms. CUL T-S Ar. 23.44; 6 fols, ad 2:233:8; 3:114:1.iii. Ms. CUL T-S Ar. 33.31; 1 fol., ad 4:517.iv. Ms. CUL T-S Ar. 49.99; 2 fols, ad 2:1222(?), 4:55:14.v. Ms. CUL T-S Ar. 309.52; 1 fol., ad 1:12.vi. Ms. RNL Yevr. II 700; 2 fols, ad 6:1213; 8:1617.vii. Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 3866; 3 fols, ad 1:1319; 2:915; 3:67.

10 chapter one

moreover, organizes his twofold work of translation and commentary51

on Esther in the same fashion as Yefetviz., pericope-by-pericope,rather than, as does Salmon (for the most part), verse-by-verse. In theirexegetical method, notwithstanding the incorporation of midrashic tra-dition by Saadia, both menas, indeed, the Oriental Jewish exegetesgenerallyare also akin, though this renders the intriguing question ofinfluence inevitably moot, apart from Yefets citation of views clearlyattributable (though never, in the present work, attributed) to the promi-nent Rabbanite exegete. The question of influence by Yefet upon laterRabbanite exegesis of Esther, moreover, remains almost entirely moot,for the principal mediator of Yefetsand through him, apparently, ofKaraiteexegesis among the Rabbanites, Abraham Ibn Ezra, oersno clear indication of having borrowed from our exegete in either ofhis two commentaries on the book (sec. II.4.3).

Notwithstanding these insolubilities, it is clear that, as regards thehistory of Esther exegesis in general, Yefets contribution is to be con-sidered substantial, both for its early provenance as well as for its expan-siveness and depth.52 The well-known dictum, That which has beenis that which shall be there is nothing new under the sun (Eccl.1:9), is, in our view, not unreasonably descriptive of the greater partof rationalistic Judaeo-Christian exegesis of the Hebrew text of Estherfollowing Yefet. That he was aware of and sought to resolve the vastmajority of exegetical cruces with which scholars have, to the presentday, been ever grappling, is clearly borne out by a careful study ofboth his commentary and his translation. Close attention to the latter is

51 On this twofold structureor, including the Hebrew text/incipits, threefold struc-turesee Polliack, Tradition, pp. xvi, 80, as well as Saadias introduction to Job (Qafi .h,Job, p. 22; also cited by Polliack, Tradition, p. 80, n. 56): !$" $ %/* & " $ !+ &" " ",* * &'& & ,+ 1 % " & (I shall proceed in (this book) according to my usual practice incommentaries [ #ibarat]to wit, I shall translate the text of a complete, properly-orderedparasha, so that (the whole of) it might be present in the mind of him who reads it; thenI will return with explanation to that in (the parasha) which requires explanation; seealso the Hebrew translation of Qafi .h, ibid.). The translation of Goodman (Job, p. 132,cited by Polliack, Tradition, p. 80), imprecisely suggests that the commentary would becomposed only after the book was completely translated: In this book I shall follow myusual practice in commentaries and translate the full text, chapter by chapter, so thateach passage will be present to mind for the reader. Then I will go back and explainwhatever requires explanation.

52 Cf. Lehrman, Jephet, p. 240: When it is borne in mind that he plied his quillpen at a time when exegesis and philosophy were in their swaddling-stage, respect forhis omniscient [sic!] learning will grow apace and our debt to him increase manifold.


especially incumbent upon any who would assess the ability of Yefet asan exegete, for, in keeping with the dictates of both personal style and,one might say, a more popular focus, his solutions to textual cruces (lex-ical, grammatical, and syntactical) are most frequently borne out, notby explicit discussion laden with grammatical terminology, but by hischoices as a translator.

chapter two

YEFETS EXEGESIS OF ESTHER

1. Rationalistic Method

At the heart of Yefets exegetical methodas, indeed, that of the ori-ental Karaite and Rabbanite exegetes generallyis a devotion to ratio-nalism and logically constrained inquiry of the sort ubiquitouslyattested in post-Enlightenment exegesis (the so-called historical-gram-matical method),1 albeit precluding the dismissal of orthodox theolog-ical tenets which so frequently attends the latter. In its development thisrationalistic approach may be traced back, before the sectarian schismsthat eventually gave rise to Karaism, to the middt (hermeneutical prin-ciples) of early rabbinic exegesis.2 The tendency evinced by these middttowards a (quasi-)logical, if not always contextually-based, hermeneuticwas no doubt nurtured among Jewish scholars in Muslim lands by thegrowth of speculative reasoning and rationalisminfluenced in turnby elements of Christianity and, to a far greater extent, Hellenisticphilosophy3among their Muslim counterparts. Among the Karaitesin particular this tendency was further spurred, on the one hand, bytheir general rejection of rabbinic authority (per the traditions codifiedin the halakhic and haggadic literature) and the consequent necessity ofreplacing it with a system of interpretation more compatible with their(re)focus upon the biblical text as the primary locus of authority,4 and,on the other hand, by the attacks upon Karaism, during the crucial

1 Cf. Jeanrond, Interpretation, pp. 438b43a; Polliack, Trends, p. 395.2 Cf. Polliack, Trends, pp. 36669. For a concise presentation of the three collec-

tions of early rabbinic middt (i.e., the seven of Hillel, the 13 of R. Ishmael, and the 32attributed to R. Eliezer b. Yose) see Strack & Stemberger, Introduction, pp. 1630.

3 See, inter alios, Anawati, tudes, pp. 91305; Goldziher, Studien, pp. 85114; Mac-Donald, Development, pp. 119287, passim; Nader, passim; Pines, Philosophy; idem,Problems; Rahman, Islam, pp. 8790, 11727; Watt, Thought, pp. 182250; Wolfson,Philosophy, pp. 5870.

4 See Polliack, Trends, pp. 36569; idem, Voice, the two opening paragraphs.

14 chapter two

formative period of Karaite exegesis (late ninth to early tenth cent.),5

of the great Rabbanite champion Saadia Gaon, whose highly eru-dite, rationalistic arguments necessitated a response in kind from hisopponents.6

The Karaite exegetical approach may thus be viewed as an amal-gam of concepts, stimulated and influenced by both Karaite as wellas non-Karaite sources, and uniquely adapted to the distinctive ide-ology and expression of each individual exegete. Nonetheless, by thetime of Yefets activity in the early classical or consolidating periodof Karaite scholarship (second half of the 10th cent.),7 the non-Karaite(especially Mu#tazilite) influences upon his exegesis, though still dis-cernible (see section II.3), had been filtered through and adapted byprevious Karaite sources to such an extent that they were undoubtedlyconsidered, because of their integrality, as thoroughly Karaite8even,ironically, as exegetes such as Yefet disparaged the groups from whichthose influences ultimately derived.9

Yefets adherence to the rationalisticor linguistic-contextual10approach to exegesis advanced by his coreligionists finds its initialexpression at the very outset of his exegetical endeavor, in the introduc-tion to his work on Genesis, wherein he states his intention to provideboth a translation of the biblical text as well as an explanation of its

5 See Polliack, Trends, pp. 370., wherein oriental Karaite exegesis is dividedinto three major stagesviz., the formative period (late 9thearly 10th cent.), the earlyclassical or consolidating period (second half of the 10th cent.), and the late classicalperiod (11th cent.).

6 See Nemoy, Anthology, p. xxi; idem, Karaites, p. 604.7 See n. 5 above.8 Cf. Ben-Shammai, Doctrines, I, p. 323; II, p. xliv.9 Thus, e.g., Yefet states in his comment ad Ps. 139:1922 (per Ben-Shammai, Doc-

trines, II, p. 261, ll. 13, 2022 [partial Hebrew translation: I, p. 321]): %+ "$"/" +" *, ,$ $# +" "+ & & &%+ "$ &"$#" + "$" & "" "% ))) & # $# "+ # " $" , (!)# #& "+ ."" & # (Know that(David) divides the nations into two groups, one of which consists of those who professthe Creator and His law, who in this time of ours are the adherents of the Qur"an and(the adherents) of the Gospel, and to them he is referring by his statement, the wickedand men of bloodshed [v. 19] (David) petitions for the annihilation (of Gods enemies)from the world, and he refers first to the wicked and men of bloodshed [i.e., Muslims andChristians] because (God) will begin annihilating them before those who hate the Lord[cf. v. 21] since they have greatly oppressed the people of the Lord). See further Ben-Shammai, Doctrines, I, pp. 31922; Erder, Attitude; and idem, Mourners, pp. 22529.

10 See Polliack, Trends, p. 395; idem, Voice, first paragraph.

yefets exegesis of esther 15

meanings according to what its words (alfa.zuhu) require.11 This proce-dure, he goes on to say, stands in contrast to that of another commen-tator (referring, quite likely, to Dawud ibn Marwan al-Muqammi.s,who wrote a commentary on Genesis drawn primarily from Christiansources, and in whose Kalam work #Ishrun Maqala the views of the follow-ing heretical groups are discussed12)

who has loaded his explanations with the views of the apostates, thedualists, the philosophers, and the skeptics,13 having undertaken to refutethem and embellishing his book with (their views), and having therebydeparted from the (plain) sense of the text14 ( #ibara) of the book which he(originally) intended (to explain).15

Yefets clear devotionlike that of his coreligioniststo a hermeneuticfocused upon the words (alfa.z) or text ( #ibara) of Scripture shouldnot, however, be taken to reflect, as it occasionally has been by theArabic heresiographers (vis--vis the Karaites generally), a hermeneuticwhich is rigidly literalistic, and so preclusive of ijtihad or, as the methodis otherwise designated, qiyas (analogical or deductive reasoning).16 His

11 For the Arabic text see p. 92, n. 8 below.12 See Butbul & Stroumsa, Genesis, pp. 14445, n.7; Hirschfeld, Qirqisan, p.40

(English trans. by Nemoy, Anthology, p. 56); Stroumsa, Maqala, pp. 15, 21, 317 (Index ofReligions and Sects). If indeed alluding to al-Muqammi.s, and if the phrase ghayrunamin al-mufassirn (see n. 15 below) is understood to mean another commentator amongus, this would constitute significant support for the identification of al-Muqammi.s as aKaraite (on which question see Stroumsa, ibid., pp. 1619).

13 Or, sophists (sufis.ta"iyya).14 On this sense of the Arabic lexeme cf. Dozy, II, p. 91b.15 #* " % &" & / " & * " ,/ $ / & "/# "

( "$ '% %" %" " " *"&" & %

,+ " " $ $& & / [ 0] (per Butbul & Stroumsa, Gen-esis, p. 85; see also Polliack, pp. 41, 293).

16 On this latter signification of qiyas, often defined simply as (reasoning by) anal-ogy, see Bernand, .Kiyas, passim; Frank, Search, p. 24, n. 92; Hallaq, Qiyas, pp. 299306. For misstatements denying such analogical-deductive reasoning to the Karaitescf. al-Qalqashand (13551418 C.E.), .Sub.h, pp. 26061: :

!" #$ %!" ,&'( )*+ - . /(" 012 3 45 678 %+ ,9!; 'I => ? ,@A => 9;B ,(C ,&'* D8 :=AE F 3G0H 5 ,F!IJ 3G 78 (K ,LM H6 FE D ,N- =>LM H(AOP 1AE D ,F(D 78 &' =" .$ 12E 3G IQ (!+( (They[i.e., the Rabbanyun and the Qarra"un] disagree on two matters. The first of these is theassertion of the literal sense [al-.zahir] (over against) the predilection for metaphoricalinterpretation [al-ta"awl], for the Qarra"un arm the literal sense of the texts of theTorah [i.e., Scripture; see Lazarus-Yafeh, Tawrat, p. 393b], and they relate what isindicated therein with respect to Godmay He be exalted!such as the referencesto (His) form, speech, sitting down on the throne, and coming down to Mt. Sinaiin

16 chapter two

approach is, fundamentally, rationalistic,17 and as such requires that thebiblical text be interpreted in a manner consistent with the normativeusage of language and literary conventions, one important implicationof which is that, as asserted by Yefets predecessor Daniel al-Qumis,every word which is in Scripture has only one interpretation.18 Itmust be borne in mind, however, that this charter conviction of earlyKaraite exegesis was formulated primarily in opposition to the derash-

their literal sense [ .zawahirihi], just as the .Zahiriyya among the Muslims profess. Fromthis they are (inevitably) brought to the armation of anthropomorphization [al-tashbh]and the armation of (the divine attribute of) direction [al-jiha]. The Rabbanyun, (on theother hand,) adhere to the metaphorical interpretation [al-ta"awl] of all such referencesindicated in the Torah [i.e., Scripture], just as do the Ash#ariyya among the Muslims);and al-Maqrz (13641442 C.E.), Khi.ta.t, II, pp. 47677: > +B H!A;B R

! S! 1A T &' )* 1A (They [i.e., the Qarra"un] are also calledal-Isma #iyya since they consistently undertake the work of (interpreting) the texts of theTorah [i.e., Scripture] without taking recourse to the methods of analogy [qiyas] andprecedent [taqld]). On the integrality of qiyas among the Karaites of the golden agesee, in addition to our discussion below, the following excerpts from al-Qirqisans com-mentary on Genesis 1:1 (Hirschfeld, Qirqisan, pp. 42, 43): FIU AM %U "F 1 5 U" . HW H% ="AE 1 X!M 1YB Z[;B (Has not the person whorejects reason and its postulates, founded on inferences from proofs and analogies [al-maqays], reached the height of insolence, not to mention his unbounded ignorance?[trans. Nemoy, Anthology, p. 58]); \]B H!;! H!A 1YB FIU AM ((! 8"=" E 3 Z^ _ 9!O D8 ! `I+ 1I$ a(" S! > => H!I = = (!)H!(!)H Jc => 1 dC =+A 4O (Having thus explained the validity of reasoning,of the results yielded by rational and well-organized proofs, and of philosophical postu-lates built upon the science of analogy [ #ilm al-qiyas], let us move on to discuss, beforebeginning with the commentary proper, those necessary preliminary things pertainingto the explanation of the meaning of Scripture and the interpretation of its seemingambiguities [trans. adapted from Nemoy, Anthology, p. 59]. For an example of Yefetsexplicit endorsement of qiyas and ijtihad see Ben-Shammai, Doctrines, I, pp. 8689; II,pp. 16465; Hussain, Job, pp. xxvii; cviiicix, n. 22; 6. It is also worth noting that the14th century Rabbanite exegete Tan .hum ben Joseph ha-Yerushalmi, whose approach is,in our opinion, as rationalistic/literary-contextual as Yefets, also makes use of qiyas (cf.,e.g., his comment ad Esth. 9:19, cited on p. 292, n. 632 below). See also, in general, Ben-Shammai, Trends, p. 346. On the equivalency of ijtihad (lit. exerting oneself ) andqiyas, see al-Shafi#, Risala, pp. 288303; Bernand, .Kiyas, pp. 240a241a; and Schacht,Idjtihad, p. 1026a.

17 Cf. Ben-Sasson, Character, p. 9.18 # " * " # +& # "" (Marmorstein, p. 196). See also al-

Qumiss comment ad Mal. 2:9 (Markon, Commentary, p. 78): ( /& ! " "" $ ) # $ / $ " #

$# $ # (And so I have set my face against you (that youmight be) despised and base in the eyes of the Gentiles, for you have promoted modes[panm] in the Torahi.e., you have ascribed many interpretations to the Torah [i.e.,to the same passage], for you have said there are forty-nine modes [panm] [see thefollowing note] by which to interpret the Torah). Both of these are cited by Frank,Search, pp. 5, n. 19; 45.


based interpretations and exegetical traditions of the Rabbanites19 andin no way precludes the ascription of more than one motive or reason tothe biblical utterance or event from which a single interpretation isculled.20 Indeed, given the causal complexity of any real human under-taking, such speculation is all but required of any rationalistic approachto biblical exegesis that maintains the essential historicity of the personsand events described. Not surprisinglythough nonetheless notably,such multifaceted speculation (whether innovated or recycled) is typicalof Yefet, as exemplified by his comment concerning Mordecais swiftdispatch of the kings couriers in 8:10b:

By (sending them out in the manner described,) Mordecai intended twothings, the first of which was that the (new) report would not come lateto the (Jewish) people who were in the utmost parts of the kings realm sothat they would be killed before the letters came to them; and the secondwas that their mourning and the futility which they felt would cease andsexual abandon might be forsworn.21

The two motives that Yefet oers in this comment for the swift dispatchshould not be confused with his fundamental interpretation of the act

19 Cf., e.g., al-Qumiss deprecation, cited in the previous note, of manifold interpre-tation specifically in connection with the 49 modes of interpretation mentioned in y.San. iv.2 (21b; cf. also Num. Rab. xiii.15): "$ "# " & #& " $' * *& ( (& '" * " & "

. $"/ & ' '& &' '& #

.

20 Nor does this preclude the application of dierent, albeit rational, methods ofinterpretation, as evinced by Salmon in his introduction to the Song of Songs (trans.,with slight modification, and text per Frank, Search, pp. 150 and n. 24, 29394): &")* / "$ "( "& $" % "&$" " "$& +%" &" " . [*#] &"$" /* " 1*&" '" & ""*# '" $& ," &"$" 2/* " 1*&" '" " )$" $""& " ." "$ " & ( " "" ' % ,/

,+ "$ " ' "/ ($ "( * "" *" )% "$ "&$ " # #/ &" # " # "+ "& ." "$ *# *# " (Sincethe Creator anticipated that actions vary in (the eects they produce) upon humansouls, He revealed His scripture in (one of) three modes [an.ha"]. The first is the purelyexoteric [al-.zahir al-ma.h.d], which scholars need explain only literally, such as narratives,commandments and prohibitions, promises and threats. Second is the purely esoteric[al-ba.tin al-ma.h.d]; scholars must summarize its contents and explain its purposes withsubtlety, exerting themselves to reveal its benefits in order to obtain some rewardthereby. The Song of Songs, in whose interpretation we are engaged, belongs to thistype. The third mode is an esoteric revelation [wa.hy yunazziluhu #azza wa-jalla ba.tinan]whose significance can only be known via an explanation given by Him through Hisprophet, as in His statement, Let me sing of my well-beloved, a song of my beloved touching hisvineyard, etc. [Isaiah 5:1]).

21 Translation, p. 285; text, p. 50*.

18 chapter two

itself. Both motives presume the same single act, which latter is clearlydetermined by the linguistic-contextual features of the text alonetowit, that the couriers were sent out impelled on swift steeds (see thetarjama ad loc.). Having established the meaningthat is to say, theinterpretationof the text on a linguistic level, Yefets rationalism compelshim to deduce the motive or motives underlying the act so indicated,22

his probable course of reasoning in this instance falling easily into thefollowing syllogistic schema:

i. Mordecai would only have hastened the couriers in order to ob-viate the onset or continuation of something undesirable.

ii. That which, on a national level, would have been undesirable toMordecai (and within his power to aect) was a) the destructionof his people per Hamans unmitigated decree, and b) the generaldespondency of his people in the face of impending genocide andtheir consequent laxness with regard to pure living.

iii. Mordecai must therefore have hastened the couriers in order toobviate these two things that were undesirable to him.

Whether or not this syllogism was precisely so formulated by Yefet, itis evident that deductive reasoningin this instance, specifically, qiyasal-burhan (demonstrative syllogism)23played an essential role in hisexegesis. That the same holds true for analogical reasoningi.e., qiyasin its more common sense24may be gathered from Yefets followingcomment ad 9:28:

Regarding the statement, And these days are remembered and observed ((#$)(the writer) recalls by these two (participles) two expressions pre-viously mentioned in connection with the Sabbath, as per the statement,Remember (() the Sabbath day (Exod. 20:8), and as it also says, to observe(#$") the Sabbath day (Deut. 5:15). Thus the obligation (to observe) thesetwo days became like the rest of (Israels religious) obligations.25

Schematically represented, Yefets reasoning is as follows:

i. The verbal roots ( and #$ are employed in connection with theobservance of the Sabbath, which is a religious obligation (wujub).

ii. The same two roots are employed in connection with the obser-vance of Purim.

22 See also the multiple motives posited by Yefet in his comments ad 4:4 (trans., p.243), and 8:9. (trans., p. 285).

23 See Hallaq, Qiyas, p. 302.24 Cf. Bernand, .Kiyas, p. 238b; Hallaq, Qiyas, p. 288; Lane, Lexicon, p. 2578a.25 Translation, p. 306; text, p. 59*.


iii. Purim, like the Sabbath, must therefore hold the status of a reli-gious obligation (wujub).

Such analogical reasoningspecifically vis--vis the use of identical orsimilar phraseology (linguistic intertextuality)is, of course, an ubiq-uitous feature of rabbinic exegesis. Among Yefet and his peers of theKaraite golden age, however, such reasoning was necessarily in-formed by the rational limitations of context (chronology, geography,etc.), whereas among the rabbinic exegetesexcluding, in large part,the oriental Rabbanites, who in this respect shared the approach oftheir Karaite counterpartssuch limitations were often largely ig-nored. Thus, for instance, in an early exegetical tradition ascribed toR. Simeon/Shimon,26 the wise men who knew the times ($ &*$) in 1:13 are identified as the tribe of Issachar since a similarphrase ($" $) is applied to them in 1Chron. 12:33.27 WithYefet, however, such analogical reasoning could hardly find acceptance,being obviated by several contextual-rational considerationsviz., 1)the indication in v. 14 that these wise men were at the forefront ofthe Persian-Median nobility and royal administration, 2) the unlikeli-hood of Jewish men being so intimately acquainted with the Persian (explained by Yefet as the judicial process of the Persians, as wellas their laws and statutes28), and 3) the unlikelihood that all the Persiankings advisors were Jewishmuch less from the same Jewish tribe.

Further underscoring Yefets essentially rationalistic, rather thanstrictly literalistic, approach to exegesis is his not infrequent recogni-tion of non-literal meaningin most instances, specifically, idiomaticor figurative languagewhere the literal meaning would pose a theo-logical or contextual-rational diculty. In this respect Yefet is, again,fully in step with his peers,29 among whom this exegetical qualificationis perhaps most clearly expressed by al-Qirqisan as the second of histhirty-seven principles (u.sul) of exegesis:

Scripture as a whole is (to be interpreted) in accord with its literal mean-ing, except where its literal meaning involves something objectionable

26 Apparently, the fourth generation Tanna Shimon ben Yo .hai.27 Ab. Gur. ad loc.: "# '# ( [$ 0] &% & )$ $ &*" ."& &

$" $ ## & ##; Esth. Rab. iv.2: $ $ &*" ."& &

#$ & $" $" $ ## &

## "# '# ( &% & & // "#. See also Tg. Esth. I ad loc.: $& &* ## &*" "& &))) % &( $.

28 Translation, p. 185; text, p. 13*.29 Cf. Polliack, Trends, pp. 37980; Skoss, Genesis, pp. 3738.

20 chapter two

or implies a contradiction. Only in such as these or similar cases whichdemand a departure from the literal meaninge.g., where a preced-ing or following passage requires itdoes it become necessary to departfrom the literal meaning.30

One such example of non-literal interpretation is Yefets commentconcerning the light () in 8:16:

As to the statement, there was lightthis is because their state was similarto the state of him who is in black darkness, yet when the second letterswere written the darkness and dismay left them, and in place of theirsorrow they took hold of joy and gladness, and in place of their beingdebased by their enemies their prestige was displayed.31

Though clearly non-literal, it cannot be claimed that Yefets interpre-tation of light here is free,32 for his reasoning is still bound by thestrictures of context; the light is explained in accord with the lit-eral signification of the following words, and joy and gladness andprestige (+ ## *). Indeed, Yefet is explicating that which, inthis instance, is in most cases no doubt intuitively perceived by thereader, such contextually-delineated figurative language being a nor-mative convention of otherwise literal, human communication.

Another aspect of Yefets exegesis usually subsumed under non-literalinterpretation is his use of the method known as prognostication or,as we shall hereafter refer to it, actualizationthat is, the applica-tion of predictive passages to events and people of the commentatorsown period, including recent history and the impending future (oftenwith specific attention to the Karaite movement).33 Thus, for example,

30 Cited, with modification, from Nemoy, Anthology, p. 60. Arabic text (per Hirschfeld,Qirqisan, pp. 4344): D 8" (!)FR$ a T" N- ef 3 N- => N; dC78 F gU ahD NA C ahD F( 1c 78 6 Zi F gU _ N!W 786 > FUj 3 Qk! l!. See also al-Qirqisans fourth principle advocating thefigurative construal of anthropomorphic representations of God (Hirschfeld, Qirqisan,pp. 2526, 4546; Nemoy, Anthology, pp. 6364).

31 Translation, p. 287; text, p. 51*.32 Cf. Skoss (Genesis, pp. 3738), who, inaccurately in our view (for the same reasons

discussed in connection with Yefet), describes similar comments by #Al ibn Sulaymanas free interpretationse.g., his comment ad Gen. 2:17 (ibid., p. 123): ." [] & " " &" $ 1$ & "[] &" ++*% $& [& &] &&

" (for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely diethe meaning of this is that(he will) become subject to death in the day that he eats from the tree of knowledge, forwhen he ate he did not die in the day of his eating).

33 See, e.g., Frank, Search, pp. 1618; 165203 (et passim); Polliack, Trends, pp. 37988, 39394; Polliack & Schlossberg, Prophets, pp. 69.


he explains the prediction And at the time of the end (1+ $) shallthe king of the south push at him (Dan. 11:40) in connection with therelatively recent Byzantine capture of #Ayn Zarba (962 C.E.), Tarsus(965), and Antioch (968) from the Muslims.34 Such actualization, it maybe notedespecially as illustrated by the present example concerningthe time of the end, is consistent with the messianic-eschatologicalorientation of the Jerusalem Karaites,35 and so should not be construedin every instance as a type of non-literal interpretation. Yefet, like his fel-low Mourners of Zion,36 sincerely believed that the literal fulfillmentof these biblical predictions lay in their general period of history, thelast part of which period was identified with the time of the end;37

where, therefore, the fulfillment of a particular prediction is not clearlydelimited by historically specific content, these exegetes could quite

34 Margoliouth, Daniel, p. mm: nU nA$ = +o =" / ."& 1A" "I - $

A CE j nA"T = $ H! 7E H'o L> S;I H!DM+ LM 'qr Qj"Q (A portion of the activity of the king of the south has already been realized in ourtimei.e., certain battles have taken place wherein he has taken from the Muslimsfrontiers Antioch, Tarsus, #Ayn Zarba and that region; yet aside from these there stillremain other conflicts to arise between them). For the dates of capture given above seeidem, p. vi; Schenker, Danielkommentars, p. 19. As regards the Karaites specifically,cf. Yefets comment ad Song 5:7 (Frank, Search, pp. 16263 [trans.], 29798 [text]), whichentire book he construesless rationally, to be sure (albeit cf. Salmons second modeof interpretation cited above on p. 17, n. 20)as a predictive allegory.

35 Cf. Astren, Understanding, pp. 6698; Erder, Mourners; Ben-Sasson, Charac-ter, pp. 910; Frank, Search, p. 13; Gil, History, pp. 8045; Mann, Texts, pp. 56; Nemoy,Karaites, p. 606b; and especially the parallels to the messianically-eschatologicallyoriented Dead Sea Sect discussed by Erder, Sects; Wieder, Exegesis; idem, Sec-taries; and idem, Scrolls, pp. 95127. See also the anonymous extract from a Karaitecommentary on the Psalms published by Mann, Texts, p. 68, 1002, in which the mes-sianic age is calculated to arrive just a little bit after ("/" '$& #) the commen-tarys composition in 1336 Sel./1024 C.E. Such intense messianism, on the other hand,may well have been the exception, as suggested to the present author in a written com-munication from Prof. Polliack dated January 24, 2006: In a recent discussion withFred Astren we both concluded that the messianic element among the second gener-ation Jerusalem Karaites was much less than we previously conceivedthis is mainlydue to their economic strength and other factors recently discussed in [Marina] Rus-tows PhD.

36 , ", on which self-applied title see, inter alios, Astren, Understanding, pp. 7879;Ben-Shammai, Mourners; Erder, Mourners; Nemoy, Karaites, p. 606b; Wieder,Scrolls, pp. 126, 2023.

37 That Yefet did not consider this time as having actually arrived may be inferredfrom, inter alia, his comment ad Ps. 74:9 (There is no more any prophet; neither is thereamong us any who knows how long!), which he interprets as an actualized lamentconcerning the absence of a maskl to pinpoint for his people the time of the end ($1+; Dan. 12:9) (see Frank, Search, p. 181).

22 chapter two

reasonably actualize that prediction by application of a literal inter-pretive method.38

In his commentary on Esther, however, there is hardly room for suchactualization, since the book is entirely narrative and non-predictive.Nonetheless, in his introduction to the book Yefet appears to posit, bya sudden shift from the perfect to the imperfect verbal form, a clear,corporate connection between the Diaspora of his day and that ofthe biblical narrative. Each is an expression of the same historicallytranscendent (and primarily Rabbanite) ethnos39 which, by continuing inthe commission of grave sins (dhunub kibar), will continue to experiencenational hardships (shada"id) intended to induce them to repent:

(Israels worship of idols and stars) was likewise (undertaken) in the restof the lands of the Gentiles, though it ceased during the first of the FourKingdomsthat is, the kingdom of the Chaldeansafter which theyworshipped the idols no more.

There are, however, (other) grave sins which they (i.e., the Rabbanites)practice (ya #malunaha), such as astrology, seeking omens, augury, sorcery,sexual immorality, profanation of the Sabbath, and the like, and thusthey are rendered culpable by these throughout the time of the Dias-pora until they forsake them. Sometimes, moreover, they are excessive(yufri.tuna) in their sins, and therefore God incites hardships against themat various times which prompt them to return to God in one fashion oranother.40

On a more general level, whether extending to actualization or con-strained to strict description of past history, Yefets exegesis may bedivided into two distinct, overall focito wit, internally focused exegesis,which concerns the content of the text (i.e., what the text communicates,as delineated by historical and socio-political features, etc.), and exter-nally focused exegesis, which concerns the form of the text (i.e., how thetext communicates, as delineated by style, structure, literary and edi-torial concerns).41 While these two foci, to be sure, are hardly unique

38 Even where a prediction does contain historically specific content, it is not clearto us that actualization by Yefet is necessarily indicative of a non-literal approach,since the groups involved, such as the Jewish people, may well have been viewed asa historically transcendent ethnos (see below).

39 This concept of historically transcendent corporate identity is, of course, wellattested in rabbinic thought, perhaps most notably in the Passover liturgy (e.g., ad theFour Sons).

40 Translation, pp. 16062; text, pp. 4*5*.41 An alternative, though not fundamentally dierent, delineation of Yefets exegesis

into three major foci is advanced by Polliack (Trends, p. 395)viz., 1) Questions per-


among exegetes of that period to either Yefet or the Karaites gener-ally, our commentator is nonetheless distinguished by the insightfulnessand, to a certain degree, innovativeness which marks his awareness anddiscussion of various aspects pertaining to each.

In the first instance, as regards internally focused exegesis, we see thatYefet is highly concerned, if not preoccupied, with reconstructing thehistorical background of the narrative. Thus, for example, in his exten-sive comment ad 1:1which is essentially a continuation of his intro-duction42he commences with a discussion of the royal succession towhich Ahasuerus belongs, identifying each king in that succession fromNebuchadnezzar to Artaxerxes the Great43 and connecting each one toa major event or circumstance which is clearly intended to assist thereader in properly placing that king within the span of (biblical) his-tory. In a similar vein, Yefet devotes a significant amount of space in hiscommentary ad 1:211 to a detailed reconstruction of the second ban-quet scene, explaining how the elliptically mentioned items in verse sixwere actually arranged. Quite innovatively he avers that there was notonly an overhead canopy to protect the guests from the starkness ofnight and day (kashf layl wa-nahar), but also that the area underneaththis canopy was divided into several sitting areas (majalis), each ofwhich was separated from the others by curtains stretched from pillarto pillar. To this description Yefet adds (ad v. 11)no doubt reflecting(per qiyas), to a certain extent anachronistically, the oriental architectureand custom of his day44that the kings sitting area (majlis) was at ahigher level than those of his guests, overlooking the courtyard in whichthey were located.45

Particular testimony both to the extent of Yefets interest in thehistorical matrix of the biblical narrative as well as to his deductive

taining to the historical background, 2) Identification of patterns of expression typicalof biblical literature, as well as wider structural characteristics, and 3) Reconstructionof the editorial process behind the formation of the biblical text.

42 On this practice of extending the introduction into the commentary see Simon, p.72.

43 Viz., Nebuchadnezzar, Evil-Merodach, Belshazzar, Darius the Mede, Cyrus, Aha-suerus, Artaxerxes the Lesser, Darius the Persian, and Artaxerxes the Great, on whichenumeration see pp. 16667, n. 40 below.

44 Cf. the discussion of the majlis in Goitein, Society, IV, pp. 48, 6369, and esp. p. 71:The height of a room was conditioned by its function. A spacious majlis had to be lofty,the small adjacent rooms would have looked odd if they had been of the same height.

45 For other medieval (Karaite and Rabbanite) depictions of the second banquetscene see Walfish, Esther, pp. 1037, and pp. 17778, nn. 87 & 88 below.

24 chapter two

acumen in reconstructing that matrix may be found in the brief state-ment with which he opens his commentary ad 3:1215: (The mudawwin)indicates that Haman hastily summoned the kings scribes, with whosescripts the governors of the provinces were familiar (alladh ya#rifu umara"al-buldan khu.tu.tahum). In contrast to the two examples of reconstruc-tion cited in the preceding paragraph, both of which are intended toclarify explicitly mentioned features of the narrative (i.e., the reign ofAhasuerus and the second banquet scene), the second part of this intro-ductory comment finds no apparent exegetical justification. Whetheror not the governors were familiar with the royal scribes scripts isirrelevantand that they were so familiar can hardly have been in-tended by Yefet as a reason for Hamans recourse to these scribes, see-ing that their involvement in the mass publication of a royal edictwould have been a matter of course. Indeed, Yefets commencementof this clause with the relative pronoun alladh is more reasonably sug-gestive of parenthetical rather than causal import, for the latter ofwhich one would have expected him to employ the conjuction li-anna,as he typically does in such instances. Notwithstanding, however, itsinterpretive irrelevance, this comment belies a marked awarenessnodoubt deductively achieved (again, per qiyas)of administrative culture,for it is now known that the royal scribes of ancient Persiaas ofAssyria and Babyloniadid indeed employ a distinctive formal cur-sive script which would have been familiar to administrators through-out the empire.46

Religious aspects of the narrative matrix are also treated by Yefet,who, in a significant display of his breadth of knowledge, explicitlyand uniquely, as far as we can tell, among the medieval Jewish exege-tesposits a Mazdean-Dualist theological motivation for the kingsdecree concerning the worship of Haman:

Regarding (Hamans) statement, neither do they observe the kings laws (3:8)this refers to what the king commanded concerning prostration beforeHaman, though (the reason for) it is not recordedto wit, that someof the Persians believed that the Divine Light (al-nur) had certain activemanifestations (af #al), and therefore, when they saw someone who wasattractive and intelligent, they would opine that something of the Divine

46 See Naveh, Script, p. 343b: The standards were fixed by the royal scribes, whowrote in a conservative formal cursive style. Everybody who learned to write was taughtto follow the standard calligraphy of the formal cursive script but practically only thescribes adhered to the scribal rules.


Light existed within him, and so they would deem fit to worship him ina special fashion.47

Yefets rationalism is also manifest in the rather innovative extent towhich he integrates character analysis and psychology into his exegesis.In contrast to the tendency attested in prior rabbinic exegesis towardsapproaching biblical characters as mono-dimensional icons,48 Yefetapproaches them more soberly as individuals who are both multi-dimensional and psychologically complex. Though God remains sov-ereign over the events of the biblical narrative, the individuals con-cerned therein, being possessed of free will (i.e., ikhtiyar, or qadar in theMu#tazilite sense49), make choices and behave, whether for good or forbad, in accordance with reasons particular to them. Fostered, no doubt,by a somewhat homiletical, or applicational, tendency on Yefets part,these reasonsthat is to say, the why of textual content as well asthe what thereofare consequently reckoned by him as an essen-tial component of the interpretive target. The result is a human-ization of the characters that permitsand, indeed, encouragesamore ready empathy and, as the case may be, emulation on the partof the reader. The actions undertaken by Mordecai and Esther are, inthe end, no greater (or worse) than those that fall within the poten-tial capacity of any man or woman.50 Thus, for example, Yefet writes

47 Translation, pp. 22223; text, p. 25*. Cf. Zaehner, Magi, pp. 23, 3541, as wellas, inter alios, al-Shahrastan, Milal, II, p. 75 (on the beliefs of the Manichaeans): '. 4h* !s FA" 0H!> HA"+ H!C HD &!j F+ 06M D 1]" NUtEB a6 g!E ' (As regards the Divine Lightits substance is pleasing,distinguished, noble, and attractive; its essence is good, honorable, intelligent, bene-ficial, and sublime; its active manifestations [fi #luhu] are goodness, righteousness, useful-ness, happiness, orderliness, coherence, and concordance).

48 Zawanowska, Approach, part two.49 See Gimaret, Mu#tazila, p. 790a, and, inter alios, al-Shahrastan, Milal, I, p. 62,

on the doctrine of qadar (' ) per Wa.sil ibn A.ta": ou B ,T> !C 3AE `'I,F!> ou r ,k!O !> C^ , vhj TIA ou B ,- O F!G vR3AE d ,FA" => `oKM ,H!*AM H>M C ,B ,J ![ 1> IA"FD 78 => N'$ (The CreatorMay He be exalted!is wise and just. It is impossiblethat evil and injustice should be attributed to Him; nor is it possible that He shoulddesire of humanity that which is contrary to what He has commanded, or decidesomething for them and then requite them for such. Therefore man is the agent ofgood and evil, belief and unbelief, obedience (to God) and disobedience; and he willindeed be requited for his deeds, for the LordMay He be exalted!has given himpower over all of this). On the strong similarities between Yefets dogma and that ofthe Mu#tazilites see section II.3 below.

50 Cf. Zawanowska, Approach, part four.

26 chapter two

concerning Esthers hesitancy to go to the king and Mordecais re-sponse (4:1014):

(One of her obstacles) was that it was not permissible for her to meet withthe king except at the time he would be sitting in his court in the innerresidence, and that if she went to him there apart from him summoningher she was concerned for herself that she would be put to deathandthen, for neither Mordecai nor for her, would their goal be achievedconcerning the removal of the decree from (the Jews) (yet) she stilldesired that (Mordecai) would bear patiently with her until another time,whereupon, perhaps, the king would request her and it would then bepossible for her to speak. However, when Mordecai heard this, he sharplysent back to her his reply, not because Esther was really saying to herselfthat the Jews would perish while she and all the Jews who were in thekings residence would be spared, or because she was (only) concernedabout the family of her fathers house, but rather because he wanted toprovoke her greatly.51

The psychological complexityi.e., the true humannessof Mordecaiand Esther is here highlighted by Yefet via two notable deductionsto wit, 1) though initially recalcitrant, Esther was not flatly resolvedto ignore the situation,52 or to save only herself and her household,but rather she was at once determined to do something, albeit at amore opportune time; and 2) Mordecai, in a not uncommon parentalmove, intentionally overshot the mark and attributed wrong motives toEsther in order to prompt her to undertake immediately that whichhe knew she was already willing to do, provided the time was themost opportune.53 In consequence of this rationalistic-psychological ap-proach, moreover, Esther is assigned a much more activeand hencepositiverole by Yefet than that attested in prior rabbinic literature,where she is typically treated as a fairly passive participant.54 Perhapsthe most evidentand, in the first instance, most innovativeexamplesof this are to be found at the end of his commentary ad 6:147:10, inan excursus regarding two interpretive cruxes (masa"il).55 The first of

51 Translation, pp. 24344; text, pp. 32*33*.52 Thus, e.g., Salmon, for whose comment ad loc. see p. 244, n. 412 below.53 See also, referring to the present authors translation, Polliack, Esther, fifth

paragraph under Yefet ben Eli.54 See, e.g., b. San. 74b: "$ $++ % & ! % % , and

the comment th

Documents

Brill Publishing the Arabic Translation and Commentary of Yefet Ben 'Eli the Karaite on the Book of Esther (2008)