review of scholarly research on yefet ben ʻeli and his works

Revue�des�études�juives,�173�(1-2),�janvier-juin�2014,�pp.�97-138.doi:�10.2143/REJ.173.1.3030667

M a r z e n a Z AWA N O W S K AUniversity�of�Warsaw

REVIEW OF SCHOLARLY RESEARCHON YEFET BEN ‘ELI AND HIS WORKS

RÉSUMÉ

L’un des interprètes karaïtes de l’Écriture les plus importants de la période classique fut Yefet ha-Levī Ben ‘Eli. Ses commentaires bibliques constituent le meilleur exemple de la maturité de l’exégèse karaïte médiévale, qui a atteint son apogée à l’école karaïte de Jérusalem, au tournant des Xe et XIe siècles. Cet article passe en revue de façon détaillée les travaux d’érudition sur cet exégète, y compris des édi-tions critiques et des traductions de ses compositions exégétiques, ainsi que des travaux universitaires inédits consacrés à lui et à son œuvre. L’article décrit de façon systématique et, autant que possible, dans l’ordre chronologique les principales réa-lisations de divers savants et le contenu de leurs ouvrages respectifs.

ABSTRACT

One of the most central Karaite interpreters of Scripture of the early classical period was Yefet ha-Levī Ben ‘Eli whose biblical commentaries are the finest example of the mature stage of Karaite exegesis, which reached its peak in the Jerusalem Karaite school at the turn of the tenth and eleventh centuries. The article presents a detailed review of works of scholarship on this exegete, including critical editions and trans-lations of his exegetical compositions as well as unpublished Masters’ theses and Ph.D. dissertations devoted to him and his oeuvre. The outline describes, in a sys-tematic way, the main accomplishments of various scholars and the content of their works on an individual basis and, as far as possible, in chronological order.

1. Introduction

Since its advent in the ninth century CE, Karaism has been an inherent part of Jewish culture that exercised a productive influence on it as well. Yet, despite its importance for understanding Jewish intellectual tradition as a whole, the Karaite movement was often looked upon by Jewish traditional-ists as both a marginal and alien sect, whose achievements were not worthy

97104.indb 9797104.indb 97 12/08/14 08:4312/08/14 08:43

98 REVIEW�OF�SCHOLARLY�RESEARCH�ON�YEFET�BEN�‘ELI�AND�HIS�WORKS

of special attention. This approach also affected, to a certain degree, scholars of Judaism. As a result, many of the Karaites’ major works remained for a long time unedited and unpublished, and consequently unknown to the wider scholarly public.1

Nevertheless, already in the early twentieth century there was strong interest among Judaists such as Jacob Mann, Leon Nemoy and others in the literary and historical achievements of the Karaites. These pioneering schol-ars laid the foundation for the field of Karaite studies at large and for its integration within Jewish, Islamic and Religious studies.

Recent scholarship has been attempting to bring major Karaite texts into further light while analyzing them in a broader historical, sociological, and literary context. In turn, this has inevitably been bringing about a reappraisal of Jewish culture as a whole.

In the following is a detailed review of works of scholarship on the most central Karaite exegete of the mid-tenth to the early-eleventh century Yefet Ben ʻEli and his oeuvre. The review does not refer to numerous general works about Karaism and its intellectual achievements, which have been surveyed elsewhere.2

1. This article was prepared for publication within the framework of the DFG-DIP grant project (2013-17) Biblia�Arabica:�The�Bible�in�Arabic�among�Jews,�Christians�and�Muslims (Project initiators: Camilla Adang, Meira Polliack, Sabine Schmidtke). Its draft was pre-sented at the Workshop “Karaite Studies — the State of the Field” (Beer Sheva, 27 Febru-ary-1 March 2012). I would like to express my gratitude especially to Prof. Meira Polliack, but also to Prof. Michael Wechsler, Dr. James T. Robinson, Dr. Miriam Goldstein and Kees de Vreugd for having read the final draft of this paper, suggested certain improvements, and directed my attention to additional unpublished works. Special thanks are also due to Oded Zinger for helping me to gain access to one of the unpublished Ph.D. dissertations.

2. For a general overview of scholarly research on Karaism, Karaite literature and exege-sis, see esp. B. D. WALFISH and M. KIZILOV, Bibliographia�Karaitica.�An�Annotated�Bibliog-raphy�of�Karaites�and�Karaism, Leiden, 2011. See also H. BEN-SHAMMAI, “Karaites and the Orient — Trends in the Study of Karaites and Karaism”, Peʻamim 89 (2001), p. 5-18 (Hebrew); ID., “The Scholarly Study of Karaism in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries”, in M. POLLIACK (ed.), Karaite�Judaism:�A�Guide�to�its�History�and�Literary�Sources, Leiden, 2003, p. 9-24; A. DUBIŃSKI, “The Beginnings of Scholarly Interest in Karaite Language and Literature in Europe until the End of the 19th Century”, Przegląd�Orientalistyczny 2/30 (1959), p. 135-144 (Polish); D. FRANK, “The Study of Medieval Karaism 1959-89”, Bulletin� of�Judaeo-Greek�Studies 6 (1990), p. 15-23; ID., “The Study of Medieval Karaism”, in N. DE LANGE (ed.), Hebrew�Scholarship�and� the�Medieval�World, Cambridge, 2001, p. 3-22; ID., “Karaite Exegesis”, in M. SAEBØ� (ed.),� Hebrew� Bible/Old� Testament:� The�History� of� its�Interpretation, Gottingen, 2000, p. 110-128; ID., Search�Scripture�Well:�Karaite�Exegetes�and�the�Origins� of� the� Jewish� Bible� Commentary� in� the� Islamic� East, Leiden, 2004, p. 1-32; M. GOLDSTEIN, The� Pentateuch� Exegesis� of� the� Karaite� Yūsuf� ibn� Nūḥ� and� Abū� al-Faraj�Hārūn:� an� Examination� of�Method� in� the� Context� of� the� Contemporaneous� Literary� and�Exegetical� Approaches� of� Jews,� Christians� and�Muslims, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2006, p. 18-24; D. J. LASKER, “Karaites, Developments

97104.indb 9897104.indb 98 12/08/14 08:4312/08/14 08:43

REVIEW�OF�SCHOLARLY�RESEARCH�ON�YEFET�BEN�‘ELI�AND�HIS�WORKS 99

The outline below describes, in a systematic way, the main accomplish-ments of various scholars and the content of their works on an individual basis and, as far as possible, in chronological order. This method obviously requires schematization and simplification, since the publications of various scholars frequently overlap temporally, whereas their studies usually cover more than one period, as delimited for the sake of this review.

2. Yefet Ben ʻEli: Between Scholarly Amnesia and Ideological

Antagonism

One of the most preeminent and prolific Karaite commentators of the early classical period was Yefet ha-Levī Ben ‘Eli whose biblical commen-tary is the finest example of the mature stage of Karaite exegesis, which reached its peak in the Jerusalem Karaite school at the turn of the tenth and eleventh centuries. Yefet’s work is a singular example in the history of the Jewish exegesis of the Holy Scriptures of a continuous translation and com-mentary of the entire Hebrew Bible.3

Yet despite the vital role he played in consolidating classical Karaite exegesis and the major impact his works had on subsequent Jewish exegesis as a whole, over time Yefet gradually sank into oblivion among non-Karaite

1970-1988”, in EJ�Yearbook�1988-89, Jerusalem, 1990, p. 366-367; ID., “Karaism and Jewish Studies”, in M. FRIEDMAN (ed.),�Jewish�Culture�in�Muslim�Lands�and�Cairo�Geniza�Studies�1, Tel Aviv, 2000, p. 1-29 (Hebrew); M. POLLIACK, “Medieval Karaism”, in M. GOODMAN, J. COHEN and D. SORKIN (eds),�The�Oxford�Handbook�of�Jewish�Studies, Oxford, 2002, p. 295-326; EAD.�(ed.), Karaite�Judaism, op.�cit.; EAD., “Wherein Lies the Pesher? Re-questioning the Connection Between Medieval Karaite and Qumranic Modes of Biblical Interpretation”, Jewish Studies� an� Internet� Journal 4 (2005), p. 151-200 (152-153); G. TAMANI, “Lo stato attuale degli studi sul caraismo”, Annali�della�facolà�di�Lettere�e�filosofia�dellʼUniversità�di�Padova 2 (1977), p. 325-345; M. ZAWANOWSKA, “Outline of the State of Research on the Early Karaism�— Basic Problems, Breakthrough Achievements and Major Challenges”, in Volume�V�of�a�Supplement�to�Studia�Judaica, Cracow, 2010, p. 163-176 (Polish).

3. This can be attested to by the words of Simḥah Isaac Luzki, who declares: “Yefet ha-Levi, known as Abū ʻAli, composed a commentary on the entire Torah, Prophets and Writings, which today is in our hands”. See J. MANN, Texts�and�Studies�in�Jewish�History�and�Literature, vol. 2: Karaitica, Philadelphia, 1935; repr. New York, 1972, p. 1414. For the plethora of Mss. (over 740 manuscripts indexed by the NLI website), see http://nli.org.il. Cf. M. G. WECHSLER, “Japheth (Abū ʻAlī Ḥasan) ben Eli”, in Encyclopedia�of�Jews� in� the�Islamic�World, 4 vols., Leiden, 2010, vol. 3, p. 404-406. Until now, only Yefet’s commentary on Lamentations might not have been found or identified yet, though there are three Mss. that according to the catalogue “ALEPH” include passages from Yefet’s commentary on this book. See H. BEN-SHAMMAI, “Japheth ben Eli ha-Levi”, in Encyclopaedia�Judaica, 2nd ed., 22 vols., Detroit, New York, San Francisco, New Haven, Waterville, London, 2006-07, vol. 11, p. 86-87 (p. 86). Cf. also FRANK, Search, op.�cit., p. 250, n. 10.

97104.indb 9997104.indb 99 12/08/14 08:4312/08/14 08:43


— and to a certain extent even Karaite — authors. Baruch Spinoza, for example, when referring to certain concepts related to the question of the authorship of the Torah, promulgated initially by Yefet and apparently repeated by Abraham Ibn Ezra, completely ignores the former and attributes them to the latter. Thus, he states that “Aben Ezra (...) was the first, so far as I know, to treat of this opinion”.4

There were complex reasons for this “scholarly amnesia” which cannot be elaborated in this context, most notably the Judaeo-Arabic language in which his works were written, but also sheer size of the materials he left behind and their accessibility.5 Some of the scholars formulated the hypoth-esis that it was inter�alia due to the fact that he had been “overshadowed by Saʻadyah”.6 Be it as it may, these led over time to a general ignorance of his Bible exegesis and its significant contribution.

4. See B. DE SPINOZA,�Tractatus-Theologico-Politicus,�Tractatus�Politicus,�Translated from the Latin, with an Introduction by R. H. M. Elwes, London, 1891, p. 145 (8:4). For Yefet’s innovative, if not revolutionary conception of the human authorship of the Torah, in some ways anticipating Abraham Ibn Ezra’s objections to and Spinoza’s denial of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, see M. ZAWANOWSKA, The�Arabic�Translation�and�Commentary�of�Yefet�ben�῾Eli�on�the�Abraham�Narratives�(Genesis�11:10-25:18), Leiden, 2012, p. 27-57.

5. Some of the forerunners of the Karaite movement (such as Benjamin al-Nihāwandī and Daniel al-Qūmisī) composed their commentaries in Hebrew. Very soon, however, Arabic was adapted for use as the main medium of Karaite literary expression. This “adapted” Arabic, com-monly called Judaeo-Arabic, is in fact a Jewish dialect of medieval Middle Arabic, written either in Arabic or Hebrew characters. See especially J. BLAU,�A�Grammar�of�Mediaeval�Judaeo-Arabic, Jerusalem, 1961; 2nd enlarged ed. Jerusalem, 1980; repr. Jerusalem, 1995 (Hebrew); ID., The�Emergence�and�Linguistic�Background�of�Judaeo-Arabic:�A�Study�of�the�Origins�of�Neo-Arabic�and�Middle-Arabic, Oxford, 1965; 2nd ed., Jerusalem, 1981; 3rd ed., Jerusalem, 1999; ID., A�Dic-tionary� of�Mediaeval� Judaeo-Arabic� Texts, Jerusalem, 2006. On the process of absorption of Arabic and its far-reaching consequences for the literary productivity of medieval Jewry in general, and Karaites in particular, see, e.g., R. DRORY, The�Emergence�of�Jewish-Arabic�Literary�Contacts�at�the�Beginning�of�the�Tenth�Century, Tel Aviv, 1988, p. 44-48 (Hebrew); M. GOLDSTEIN, Karaite�Exegesis�in�Medieval�Jerusalem.�The�Judeo-Arabic�Pentateuch�Commentary�of�Yusuf�ibn�Nuh�and�Abu�al-Faraj�Harun, Tübingen, 2011, p. 1-7. On understanding medieval Judaeo-Arabic as a voice which participated in the creation of Middle Arabic scriptolect rather than a transitional language between Classical Arabic and Neo-Arabic, see J. A. SABIH, Japhet�ben�Ali’s�Book�of�Jeremiah: A�Critical�Edition�and�Linguistic�Analysis� of� the� Judaeo-Arabic�Translation,�London, 2009, p. 1-40 and 41-69. On the Karaite innovation of transcribing Hebrew into Arabic script, see ibid., p. 11, 103-114 (106, 113). On the tendency to use Hebrew and Arabic scripts interchangeably, see G. KHAN, “On the Question of Script in Medieval Karaite Mss.: New Evidence from the Genizah”, Bulletin�of�the�John�Rylands�University�of�Manchester�75(3) (1993), p. 133-141.

6. See H. HIRSCHFELD (ed.), Jefeth�b.�Ali’s�Arabic�Commentary�on�Nāhūm,�with�Introduc-tion,�Abridged�Translation�and�Notes, London, 1911, p. 7. For a similar view expressed by Simon Maurice Lehrman, see below, n. 56. Some scholars ventured to conclude that Yefet’s occasional reliance upon Saadia Gaon “lends strength to the assumption that much else in Yefet’s commentary is derived from Saʻadyah’s works no longer extent”. See P. BIRNBAUM, “Yefet ben ʻAli and his Influence on Biblical Exegesis”, Jewish�Quarterly�Review, n.s., 32 (1941-42), p. 51-70; 159-174; 257-271 (65); ID. (ed.), The�Arabic�Commentary�of�Yefet�ben�

97104.indb 10097104.indb 100 12/08/14 08:4312/08/14 08:43


In some cases, moreover, those who ventured to study Yefet’s works expressed generalizing or impressionable views, possibly owing to the fact that they analyzed his work as an isolated phenomenon and not as an integral part of the history of the Jewish exegesis of the Holy Scriptures. As a result, many scholars perceived Yefet as a mere compiler of previous exegetical achievements and accused him of lacking originality. For example, Philip Birnbaum stated (1941-42): “It is safe to say that Yefet’s biblical commen-tary, although it contains numerous original interpretations, is in the main a compilation into which the author has condensed the exegetic erudition of his predecessors”.7 At about the same time (1942-43), E. Lawrence Marwick expressed his appreciation for Yefet’s commentaries as “sources for the his-torical study of biblical exegesis”, yet he was of the opinion that “on the whole his voluminous commentaries, composed in Judaeo-Arabic vernacular, show little originality” and he concluded that “Yefet himself always stressed his indebtedness to others”.8 Similarly, Leon Nemoy (1952) considered Yefet as “the foremost Karaite commentator on the Bible during the golden age of Karaite literature”, albeit still admitting that “Japheth’s exegesis is not origi-nal with him, nor does he claim to be so; in fact he leans heavily, and admit-tedly, on his predecessors”.9 These last two quotations well illustrate the problem of taking a fictional (rhetoric) trope, common in Medieval Karaite exegesis (meant to express the exegete’s humbleness by emphasizing his indebtedness to the predecessors), as a veridical statement.

ʻAli�the�Karaite�on�the�Book�of�Hosea,�Edited�from�Eight�Manuscripts�and�Provided�with�a�Critical�Notes�and�an�Introduction, Philadelphia, 1942, p. xx.

7. See BIRNBAUM, “Yefet”, art.� cit., p. 53; ID., The�Arabic�Commentary, op.�cit., p. ix. For a similar view expressed more recently (“Yefet was a comprehensive compiler, even an anthologist”), see GOLDSTEIN, Karaite�Exegesis, op.�cit., p. 35.

8. See L. E. MARWICK, “The Order of the Books in Yefet’s Bible Codex”, Jewish�Quarterly�Review, n.s., 33 (1942-43), p. 445-460 (444-445). For assessments of Yefet’s commentaries as verbose, see, e.g., BIRNBAUM, “Yefet”, art.� cit., p. 68; ID., The�Arabic�Commentary, op.�cit., p. xxiv; M. G. WECHSLER, The�Arabic�Translation�and�Commentary�of�Yefet�ben�ʻEli�the�Karaite�on�the�Book�of�Esther, Leiden, 2008, p. 97, n. 33 and further bibliography there. For the assertion that “Jefeth is certainly very loquacious and often repeats himself”, see S. M. LEHRMAN,A�Commentary�on�the�Book�of�Joel�by�Jefeth�ben�Ali�the�Karaite,�unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of London, 1927, p. 7, 9-10. For Yefet’s intention to be concise and brief, see ZAWANOWSKA, The�Arabic�Translation, op.�cit., p. 65, n. 22 and further bibliography there.

9. See L. NEMOY, Karaite�Anthology, New Haven, 1952, p. 83. In more recent studies, Yefet’s commentaries are given greater consideration and perceived as an “indispensable source for the history of Karaism”, although he himself is again defined as “a compiler rather than an original thinker”, while his work is seen as “eclectic”. See H. BEN-SHAMMAI, “Studies in Karaite Atom-ism”, Jerusalem�Studies�of�Arabic�and�Islam 6 (1985), p. 243-298 (249, 286). Shimon Shtober also described Yefet as a compiler (קומפילטור). See S. SHTOBER, “Geographic and Topographic Aspects in Japhet Ben Ali’s Translation and Commentary to the Bible”, in Proceedings�of�the�Eleventh�World�Congress�of�Jewish�Studies, Jerusalem, 1993, p. 151-158 (153) (Hebrew).

97104.indb 10197104.indb 101 12/08/14 08:4312/08/14 08:43


Similar view of Yefet as a compiler has been perpetuated by various encyclopedias. The Jewish�Encyclopedia (1904) states:

Unlike his Karaite predecessors in the field of Bible exegesis, Yefet realized the importance of grammar and lexicography for the interpretation of Scripture, although he did not excel in either. The interest which his commentaries pres-ent lies chiefly in the accumulation of material for the history of the differences between the Rabbanites and the Karaites.10

Even the first edition of Encyclopaedia�Judaica�(1971) denied the origi-nality of Yefet’s exegetical undertaking, by affirming that “Japheth, who relied mainly on earlier Karaite authorities, cannot be considered an innovator”.11 Also the Encyclopaedia� Biblica (1983) deprecates Yefet’s achievements by stating:

His [= Yefet’s] commentaries are simplistic, and their importance consists mainly in revealing to us the scope of his knowledge in different fields such as wisdom, nature, medicine, history, and the like, as well as his perception of Karaite doctrine.12

Finally, in the works of some scholars one can sense a traditionalist view of Judaism which is ideologically antagonistic towards Karaite Judaism and influences the description of Karaite works as being somehow “less original”

10. See I. BROYDÉ, “Japheth ha-Levi”, in The�Jewish�Encyclopaedia, 12 vols., New York, 1904, repr. in Jewish�Encyclopaedia.com, vol. 7, p. 72b-73a (72b). For negative assessments of Yefet’s ability in Hebrew grammar and lexicography, see, e.g., H. HIRSCHFELD, Literary�History� of�Hebrew�Grammarians�and�Lexicographers�Accompanied�by�Unpublished�Texts,�London, 1926, p. 32-34; LEHRMAN, A�Commentary, op.�cit., p. 5. For further bibliography, see ZAWANOWSKA, The�Arabic�Translation, op.�cit., p. 159, n. 14.

11. See Editorial stuff [= M. WURMBRAND], “Japheth ben Ali ha-Levi”, in Encyclopaedia�Judaica, 1st ed., 16 vols., Jerusalem, 1971, vol. 9, p. 1286. For the Hebrew version of the same entry, see M. WURMBRAND, “Yefet ben ‘Ali ha-Levi”, in The�Hebrew�Encyclopedia, 32 vols., Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, 1971, vol. 10, p. 157b-158a (Hebrew).

12. It reads: פירושיו פשטניים, ועיקר חשיבותם שהם מגלים לנו את היקף ידיעותיו בשטחים שונים See .כגון חכמה, טבע, רפואה, היסטוריה, וכיוצא באלה, וגם את התורה הקראית כפי שהוא תופס אותהA. S. HALKIN, “Jewish Exegesis in Arabic outside of Spain and Ancient Karaite Exegesis”, in M. GREENBERG (ed.), Jewish�Bible�Exegesis,�An� Introduction, Jerusalem, 1983, p. 15-28 (24) (Hebrew). The most recent referential source which still denies Yefet’s inventiveness is The�Karaite�Encyclopedia, which states: “He [= Yefet] relied too much on earlier Karaite authorities to be much of an innovator”. See N. SCHUR, “Japheth ben Ali (or Eli) Halevi”, in The�Karaite�Encyclopedia, Frankfurt, 1995, p. 154-155. For a more moderate and unbiased assessment, see, e.g., D. SKLARE, “Yefet ben ‘Ali”, in A. BERLIN (ed.), The�Oxford�Dictionary�of� the�Jewish�Religion, New York, Oxford, 1997, p. 785b. The author states there: “He [= Yefet] often made use of the work of his Karaite predecessors but also added original inter-pretations of his own”. Cf. also S. POZNAŃSKI, “Japhet ben Ali Hallewi”, Wielka�Encyklopedya�Powszechna�Ilustrowana, 55 vols., Warszawa, 1907, vol. 31, p. 581a. Cf. also S. J. FUENN, Keneset� Yisrael:� Biographical� Lexicon� of� Jewish� Scholars� and� Other� Prominent� Men�Arranged�in�Alphabetical�Order, Warsaw, 1886, vol. 1, p. 614-615 (Hebrew).

97104.indb 10297104.indb 102 12/08/14 08:4312/08/14 08:43


or “less inventive” than their Rabbanite counterparts.13 By the same token Yefet — who succeeded more than any Karaite commentator of Scripture in consolidating different exegetical traditions — was described as a mere com-piler, or at most a “storehouse of Karaite thought”.14 A good example of the “underestimation” of Yefet’s achievements emerges from Simon Maurice Lehrman’s article on Yefet (1967). The author states, for example: “Prodi-gious as his contribution to biblical research is, it would be hyperbolic to claim for him originality. He did not plough a lonely furrow even among his own sectarians” (p. 240).15 Others deprecated Yefet’s exegetical achievements by concluding that he composed his works mainly for polemical reasons.16

For these and other reasons it was only from the latter part of the twenti-eth century that aside from important critical editions of his works scholars also began to show specific interest in Yefet’s unparalleled exegetical achievements. Nevertheless, it is important to note that his works have never ceased to be employed as a relevant source of reference.

3. Historical Background

Scholarly interest in Karaism may be traced back to the Middle Ages (ninth-twelfth centuries), when Muslim scholars began to compose scientific

13. On such judgmental views of Karaite movement and its representatives, see, e.g., F. ASTREN, Karaite�Judaism�and�Historical�Understanding, Columbia, 2004, p. 76, 98, 100, 276.

14. See N. WIEDER, “The Dead Sea Scrolls Type of Biblical Exegesis among the Karaites”, in A. ALTMANN (ed.), Between� East� and�West:� Essays�Dedicated� to� the�Memory� of� Bela�Horovitz, London, 1958, p. 96; repr. in ID., The�Judean�Scrolls�and�Karaism, Jerusalem, 2005, p. 441-478 (462).

15. See S. M. LEHRMAN, “Jephet b. Ali, the Karaite: his Place among Biblical Commenta-tors”, in I. BRODIE, H. J. ZIMMELS, Y. RABBINOWITZ and Y. S. FINESTEIN (eds), Essays�Pre-sented� to�Chief�Rabbi� Israel�Brodie� on� the�Occasion� of�His� Seventieth�Birthday, [English volume], London, 1967, p. 231-242. Cf. below, n. 78 and also n. 56.

16. For the assessment that Yefet’s commentaries on the Bible are replete with polemics, see, e.g., HIRSCHFELD, Jefeth�b.�Ali’s, op.�cit., p. 5-6, where the author states: “One might say that Jefeth began his task [= writing commentaries on the Bible] with the primary object of refuting Saʿadyāh’s expositions. This, at any rate, is the impression gained by the perusalof his commentary on the Pentateuch”. Cf. also LEHRMAN, A�Commentary, op.�cit., p. 3; ID., “Jephet”, art.�cit., p. 234; S. POZNAŃSKI, “The Karaite Literary Opponents of Saadiah Gaon”, Jewish� Quarterly� Review, o.s., 18 (1906), p. 209-250; 19 (1907), p. 59-83; 20 (1908), p. 74-85, 216-231, (20:230), par. [12]; repr. in ID., The�Karaite�Literary�Opponents�of�Saadiah�Gaon, London, 1908, p. 22; repr. in P. BIRNBAUM (ed.), Karaite�Studies,�New York, 1971, p. 152. For a more moderate view on this matter, see, e.g., I. SASSON, Methods�and�Approach�in�Yefet�ben� ʻElī�al-Baṣrīʼs�Translation�and�Commentary�on� the�Book�of�Proverbs, unpub-lished Ph.D. dissertation,�Jewish Theological Seminary, 2010, p. 292-323, 324; ZAWANOWSKA, The�Arabic�Translation, op.�cit., p. 91-110.

97104.indb 10397104.indb 103 12/08/14 08:4312/08/14 08:43


or pseudo-scientific works of various genres in which they attempted to describe and classify existing religions or sects, and explain the dynamics of their emergence.17

Jewish medieval authors did not engage much in historical or comparative religious writing and they mainly mention the Karaite movement in polemi-cal works18, in which they attempt to establish the time of its appearance and the circumstances that led to the dissent.19 Nevertheless, some instructive

17. For a detailed discussion of this subject, see C. ADANG, Muslim�Writers�on�Judaism�and�the�Hebrew�Bible,�from�Ibn�Rabban�to�Ibn�Hazm, Leiden, 1996; EAD., “The Karaites as Portrayed in Medieval Islamic Sources”, in POLLIACK (ed.), Karaite�Judaism, op.�cit., p. 179-197, and further bibliography there.

18. The earliest evidence of Rabbanite interest in Karaism is found in a letter by Rav Amram (d. 875). For an English translation of a relevant passage from Rav Amramʼs letter, see NEMOY, Karaite�Anthology, op.�cit., p. 3. It has been assumed that later on Saadia Gaon (d. 942) provided an account of the genesis of the Karaite-Rabbanite schism, dubbing the Karaites “evil and worthless men from among the remnants of the brood of Zadok and Boethus”. See N. WIEDER, The�Judean�Scrolls�and�Karaism, London, 1962; repr. in ID., The�Judean�Scrolls, op.�cit. (2005), p. 255. Some scholars believe that this account has been pre-served in an apologetic tract entitled Ḥiluq�ha-Qara’im�ve-ha-Rabanim�[The Division of the Karaites and the Rabbanites], written by Elijah Ben Abraham (a Karaite who lived inthe eleventh-twelfth centuries). According to this text, Karaism originated some time after the destruction of the First Temple (close to the reign of “the apostate” Jeroboam, the alleged originator of the new, “invented” Oral Torah). For an edition of Elijah Ben Abrahamʼs tract and its alleged attribution to Saadia, see S. PINSKER, Lickute�Kadmoniot.�Zur�Geschichte�des�Karaismus�und�der�karäischen�Literatur, 2 vols., Vienna, 1860, vol. 2, p. 97-106 (103). For a skeptical opinion concerning Saadiaʼs authorship of the tract, see NEMOY, Karaite�Anthology, op.�cit., p. 4. See, however, S. W. BARON, “Karaite Schism”, in Social�and�Religious�History�of�the�Jews, 18 vols., New York, 1957, vol. 5, p. 209-285 (388); WIEDER, The�Judean�Scrolls, op.�cit. (2005), p. 255; M. ZUCKER, Rav�Saadya�Gaon’s�Translation�of�the�Torah:�Exegesis,�Halakha,�Polemics� in�R.�Saadya’s�Translation�of� the�Pentatuch, New York, 1959, p. 147f. and n. 596 (Hebrew). On this tract and its author, see also ASTREN, Karaite�Judaism, op.�cit., p. 85-86, 142-157, 200; D. J. LASKER, “Rabbanism and Karaism: The Contest for Suprem-acy”, in R. JOSEPH and S. W. WAGNER (eds), Great� Schism� in� Jewish�History, New York, 1981, p. 47-72 (48-49); L. NEMOY, “Elijah Ben Abraham and his Tract against the Rabban-ites”, Hebrew�Union�College�Annual 51 (1980), p. 63-87; POZNAŃSKI, “The Karaite Literary Opponents”, art.�cit., (20), p. 80-81, par. [32]; [= (1908), p. 72-74; BIRNBAUM (ed.), Karaite�Studies, op.�cit., p. 202-204]; M. ZAWANOWSKA, “Elijah ben Abraham”, in Encyclopedia�of�Jews, op.�cit., vol. 2, p. 118-119.

19. Judah Halevi (1075-1141) asserted that the Karaite movement had already originated in the Second Temple period during the reign of the King Yannai and his persecutions of the sages. See Y. HALEVI, Kitāb�al-radd�wa�ʼl-dalīl� fī� ʼl-dīn�al-dhalīl� (al-kitāb�al-khazarī), eds. D. Z. BANETH and H. BEN-SHAMMAI, Jerusalem, 1977, 3:65. For an English translation, see J. HALEVI, The�Kuzari:�An�Argument�for�the�Faith�of�Israel, trans. H. HIRSCHFELD, New York, 1964, p. 186-191. This supposition was also repeated by Abraham Ibn Dāʼūd (1110-1180), who perceived the Karaites as a continuation of Second Temple heretics. See G. D. COHEN (ed.), A�Critical�Edition�with� a�Translation�and�Notes� of� the�Book�of�Tradition� (Sefer� ha-Qabbalah)�by�Abraham�ibn�Daud, Philadelphia, 1967, p. 17-18, 48-50, 91-103.

97104.indb 10497104.indb 104 12/08/14 08:4312/08/14 08:43


historical and comparative comments on the origin of Karaism are attested also in their works.20

4. The Scholarly Study of Yefet

The beginnings of the modern study of Karaism date back to the Refor-mation period in Europe, especially the seventeenth century.21 In the first half of the nineteenth century Karaism was studied as part of emerging academic sciences of religion and Semitic languages in general, including Jewish Studies — Wissenschaft�des�Jüdentums — which began in the Ger-man and central European universities and gradually spread throughout Europe and America as a whole.22 The growth of Karaite studies, in this context, is marked by a series of important discoveries (such as the Cairo Genizah and the Dead Sea Scrolls in Qumran) and the acquisition of vast collections of manuscripts.23

20. Although in his Guide Maimonides (1138-1204) mentioned the Karaites by name only once, in the context of discussions concerning the Kalām, in the same chapter he made an effort to analyze and explain the reasons behind dissentions among the Jewish people and formation of new sects (thus also indirectly addressing the question of Karaite-Rabbanite rift), which in his opinion were due to the writing down and final canonization of the heretofore flexible Oral Tradition. See M. BEN MAIMON, Dalālāt� al-hāʼirīn� (Moreh� ha-Nebhukhim), ed. J. QAFIH, 3 vols., Jerusalem, 1972, vol. 1, chap. 71. For an English translation, see M. MAIMONIDES, The�Guide�of�the�Perplexed, trans. S. PINES, Chicago, 1963, p. 175-176. Cf. Y. LEIBOVITZ, Conversations�on�the�Ethics�of�the�Fathers�(Pirqey�Abhot)�and�on�Maimonides�(Rambam), Tel Aviv, 1979, p. 15-18 (Hebrew). Another interesting attempt not only to under-stand and describe the Karaite schism, but also to reconcile the Karaites and the Rabbanites was made by Ibn Kammūna (d. 1284) in his treatise on the difference between them. See S. B. M. IBN KAMMŪNA, Examination�of� the� Inquiries� into� the�Three�Faiths.�A�Thirteenth-Century�Essay�in�Comparative�Religion, ed. M. PERLMANN,�Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1967 (Arabic). For an English translation, see M. PERLMANN (trans.), Ibn�Kammuna’s�Examination�of�the�Three�Faiths, Berkeley, 1971; L. NEMOY, “Ibn Kammūnah’s Treatise on the Differences between the Rabbanites and the Karaites”, Proceedings�of�the�American�Academy�for�Jewish�Research 36 (1968), p. 107-165. On the Karaites’ perception of their own history, see ASTREN, Karaite�Judaism, op.�cit., p. 84-87 and further bibliography there.

21. P. FENTON, “The European Discovery of Karaism in the Sixteenth to Eighteenth Cen-turies”, in POLLIACK (ed.), Karaite�Judaism, op.�cit., p. 3-7. For a selection of Karaite texts published in this period, see J. TRIGLAND, Diatribe�de�Secta�Karaeorum, Leiden, 1703.

22. See BEN-SHAMMAI, “Karaites and the Orient”, art.�cit.23. Accordingly, the major impetus behind the dynamic development and flourishing of

the scholarly study of Karaism at that time was the purchase of a considerable numberof Karaite manuscripts by various libraries, both in Europe (the Bibliothèque National in Paris, the libraries of Oxford, Cambridge, and the British Museum) and Russia (the Russian National Library, Russian Academy of Science, now known as the Institute of Oriental Studies); till today, the latter houses the world’s most important collection of Karaitica, which was assem-bled by Abraham Firkovitch. On this collection and its importance, see M. BEIT-ARIE,

97104.indb 10597104.indb 105 12/08/14 08:4312/08/14 08:43


It was during this initial period that Yefet Ben ʻEli and his works aroused scholarly attention for the first time. Solomon Munk mentioned the exegete (1841)24, and published selected passages from his commentary on the Book of Genesis (with a French translation) (Gen. 16:13; 17:10-11; 19:31 ff.; 28:20-22) (1850)25, while Leopold Dukes referred to Yefet in his survey of early Hebrew exegetes, grammarians, and lexicographers (1844).26

Subsequently, during the course of the nineteenth century, the first, still rather sporadic attempts were made primarily to edit and much less to ana-lyze Yefetʼs texts. Characteristically, if there were such attempts in this period, they were usually made in Latin, probably due to the fact that, among other reasons, some of the researchers were Christian priests. So was at least Jean Joseph Léandre Bargès, who published (in Latin) fragments of his commentary on the Book of Psalms (Pss. 1-2) (1846)27 — subsequently employed by Dom Guy-Dominique Sixdenier to compare Yefet’s exegesis of Ps. 2 with its qumranic interpretation (1998) — and his Arabic translation of the entire Book of Psalms (1861).28 This was followed by an edition of

“Hebrew Manuscripts Collections in Leningrad”, Jewish� Studies�31 (1991), p. 33-46, and M. BEN-SASSON, “Firkovitch’s Second Collection: Remarks on Historical and Halachic Mate-rials”, Jewish�Studies�31 (1991), p. 47-67.

24. See S. MUNK, “Nachrichten und Correspondenzen”, Israelitische�Annalen 10 (1841), p. 76-77.

25. See ID., “Notice sur Abou’l-Walid Merwan ibn-Djana’h et sur quelques autres gram-mairiens hébreux du Xe et du XIe siècle”, Journal�asiatique, 4e série, 15 (1850), p. 297-337 (316-321).

26. See H. EWALD and L. DUKES (eds), Literaturhistorische�Mittheilungen�über�die�ältesten�hebräischen�Exegeten,�Grammatiker�und�Lexicographen�nebst�hebräischen�Beilagen. Vol. 2 of Beiträge� zur�Geschichte� der� ältesten�Auslegung� und� Spracherklärung� des�Alten� Testa-mentes, Stuttgart, 1844, p. 23-35 (26, nn. 1-2; 28, n. 2; 30, n. 1).

27. See J. J. L. BARGÈS (ed.), Excerpta�ex�R.�Yapheth�ben�Heli�commentariis�in�Psalmos�Davidis� regis� et� prophetae, Paris, 1846. It contains an edition of Yefetʼs introduction in Hebrew script (ktabh�Rashi) as well as his Arabic translation and commentary on Pss. 1-2 (p. 1-44), followed by an annotated translation into Latin (p. 45-118). The book opens with a preface in Latin that contains information about Yefetʼs names (their meaning and possible pronunciations) and honorific titles (p. i-viii), as well as his origins and the dating of his works (p. viii-xi). Bargès’ work also includes a description of 18 Mss. containing Yefetʼs Bible commentaries, which Munk brought from Cairo to Paris in 1840 (p. xi-xxxi), and enumera-tions of some of Yefet’s other works (p. xxxi-xxxii). This part also includes Yefet’s Hebrew poem and its Latin translation (cf. below, n. 57 and n. 79). Finally, it offers a brief discussion about Yefetʼs commentary on the Book of Psalms as a whole (p. xxxiii-xxxvi). I have decided to add in footnotes short descriptions of all the works, which have never been published (B.A. and M.A. theses, Ph.D. dissertations), as well as of those, which have been published long time ago and are not available in Eastern European libraries.

28. See J. J. L. BARGÈS (ed.), Kitāb�al-zubūr:�Libri�Psalmorum�David�regis�et�prophetae�versio�a�R.�Japheth�ben�Heli�Bassorensi�Karaitâ, Paris, 1861. This work contains an edition (in Arabic script) and Latin translation of Yefetʼs Arabic translation of the entire Book of Psalms (p. 1-288), as well as a preface (in Latin) that provides general information about

97104.indb 10697104.indb 106 12/08/14 08:4312/08/14 08:43


the exegeteʼs commentary on the Song of Songs (1884).29 The first chapter of this biblical book was also the topic of Paul (Achilles) Jung’s — the father of the famous psychiatrist Carl Gustav Jung — unpublished doctoral dissertation (in German) (1866)30, which focused on Yefetʼs commentary on its first chapter (reviewed by Heinrich Fleischer, and more than a hundred years later partially translated into English by Joel Ryce-Menuhin; 1994).31 Yefet’s commentary on this book was also used by Siegmund Salfeld as a point of reference for his study of different Jewish approaches to the Song of Songs (1879).32 At about the same time (1866), Zacharias Auerbach

Yefet, his name and biography, and discusses the Karaite movement, the origin of its name, major sects of the time, and the most important representatives of early Karaism. It also con-tains a description of the manuscripts employed in the edition and the editorial policy that was followed. The author mentions as well four major problems he faced while editing this text (p. vii-xx). See also D. G. D. SIXDENIER, “Le psaume 2 dans 4QFlorilegium et dans Japhet ben Ali in Psalmos. Essai de comparaison de leurs exégèses et méthodes”, in C. B. AMPHOUX, A. FREY, U. SCHATTNER-RIESER (eds), Études�sémitiques�et�samaritaines�offertes�à�Jean�Mar-gain, Lausanne, 1998, p. 251-257.

29. See J. J. L. BARGÈS (ed.), Rabbi�Yapheth�Abou�Aly�Ibn-Aly�Bassorensis�Karaitarum�doctoris� sapientissimi� in�Canticum�Canticorum�commentarium�arabicum, Paris, 1884. This work contains an edition in Arabic script (with sporadic Hebrew words) of Yefetʼs translation and commentary on the Song of Songs (p. ۱-۱۲۰) along with an annotated translation into Latin (p. 1-210). The book opens with a preface, also in Latin, that provides information about a previous study on Yefet, and discusses the exegeteʼs life, his name, titles, and works, as well as his commentary on the Song of Songs, its major division into 22 thematic units, and its language, script, and terminology (including a list of important terms on p. xvii-xviii). Finally, the preface also relates to the edition itself and the Latin translation of the edited text (p. i-xxviii).

30. See P. A. JUNG, Über� des� Karäers� Jephet� arabische� Erklärung� des� Hohenliedes, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, 1866. It contains an edi-tion of Yefetʼs translation and commentary (in Hebrew and Arabic scripts) on the Song of Songs 1:2-17 (p. 8-29), followed by an annotated (partial) translation into German (vss. 2-6; p. 30-38). The book opens with a preface in German that contains information about the his-tory of Karaism, as well as Yefet’s life and works (p. 3-6). It also includes a short description of his commentary on the Song of Songs (p. 6-7).

31. See H. FLEISCHER, “Ueber�des�Karäers�Jephet�arabische�Erklärung�des�Hohenliedes von Paul Jung aus Basel. Göttingen (1867). 38 S. 8.”, Zeitschrift�der�Deutschen�Morgenlän-dischen�Gesellschaft�22 (1868), p. 360-361; J. RYCE-MENUHIN, “Jung’s Father, Paul Achilles Jung, and the Song of Songs: an Introduction”, in ID. (ed.), Jung� and� the�Monotheisms:�Judaism,�Christianity�and�Islam, London - New York, 1994, p. 233-240. The article includes an English translation of Yefet’s commentary on Song 1:2-6. Cf. WIEDER, The�Judean�Scrolls, op.�cit. (2005), p. 297.

32. See S. SALFELD, “Das Hohelied Salomo’s bei den jüdischen Erklärern de Mittelalters”, Magazin�für�die�Wissenschaft�des�Jüdentums�5 (1878), p. 110-178, 6 (1879), p. 20-48, 129-169, 189-209; repr. in ID., Das�Hohelied�Salomo’s�bei�den� jüdischen�Erklärern�des�Mittel-alters:�Nebst�einem�Anhange:�Erklärungsproben�aus�Handschriften,�Berlin, 1879, p. 128-132. The author quotes Jung’s German translation of Yefet’s commentary on Song 1:2-3 (p. 129-132).

97104.indb 10797104.indb 107 12/08/14 08:4312/08/14 08:43


edited (in Latin) Yefetʼs commentary on Proverbs 3033 (also reviewed by Heinrich Fleischer)34, whereas Abraham Geiger authored a note about Yefet, in which he tried to direct scholarly attention to this exegete and his achieve-ments (1866).35 This was followed by Robert Schroeter’s edition and Ger-man translation of Yefet’s translation (with short comments) of Joel and Hosea (1871)36, as well as Adolf Neubauer’s tentative edition and English translation of selected passages from the exegete’s commentary on Isaiah (Isa. 52:13-53:12) (1877).37 Neubauer had previously authored a short description of Yefet, his works, and their main characteristics (1866).38

At this early stage in the development of wide-ranging Jewish studies, the first major historical works concerning not only Jewish history in gen-eral, but also the Karaite movement and its literary achievements in par-ticular, began to appear. Authors such as Heinrich Graetz (Geschichteder� Juden, 1853-75)39 and Julius Fürst (Geschichte� des� Karäerthums,

33. See Z. AUERBACH (ed.), Iepheti� ben�Eli�Karaitae� in�Proverbiorum�Salomonis� caput�XXX�commentarius,�nunc�primum�arabice�editus,�in�latinum�conversus,�adnotationibus�illus-tratus, Bonn, 1866. This work includes a critical edition in Arabic script of Yefetʼs translation and commentary on Prov. 30, accompanied by a Latin translation. Both parts, the edition and translation, are annotated in Latin (p. 10-47). The book is provided with an introduction, also in Latin, about Yefet, his life and works, which also includes a short description of the manu-scripts and the transliteration policy (p. 1-9). A one-page biographical note in Latin about the author, Zacharias Auerbach, is found at the end of the book (p. 49).

34. See H. FLEISCHER, “Jepheti�Ben�Eli�Karaitae� in�proverbiorum�Salomonis� cap.�XXX�commentarius�nunc�primum�arabice�editus,�in�latinum�conversus,�adnotationibus�illustratus.�Scr. Zach. Auerbach Bonnensis. Bonnae 1866. 47 SS. 8.”, Zeitschrift�der�Deutschen�Morgen-ländischen�Gesellschaft�22 (1868), p. 360-361.

35. See A. GEIGER, “Jefeth ben Ali”, Jüdische�Zeitschrift� für�Wissenschaft�und�Leben 4 (1866), p. 284-285.

36. See R. SCHROETER, “Die in Cod. Hunt. 206 aufbewahrte arabische Uebersetzung der kleinen Propheten”, Archiv�für�Wissenschaftliche�Erforschung�des�Alten�Testamentes�2 (n. 1) (1869), p. 1-38; (n. 2) (1871), p. 28-54, 153-194.

37. A. NEUBAUER and S. R. DRIVER, The� Fifty-Third� Chapter� of� Isaiah� According� tothe� Jewish� Interpreters, 2 vols. (vol. 1: Texts Edited from Printed Books and Mss. by Ad. Neubauer; vol. 2: Translations by S. R. Driver and Ad. Neubauer with an Introduction to the Translations by Rev. E. B. Pusey), Oxford and London-Leipzig, 1877; repr. New York, 1969, vol. 1, p. 22-32 (Ar.); vol. 2, p. 19-31 (Eng.); partially repr. in S. R. DRIVER and A. NEUBAUER, The�“Suffering�Servant”�of�Isaiah�According�to�the�Jewish�Interpreters (With an Introduction by Rev. E. B. Pusey), New York, 1969, p. 19-31 (Eng.).

38. See A. NEUBAUER, Aus� der� Petersburger� Bibliothek.� Beiträge� und�Dokumente� zur�Geschichte�des�Karäerthums�und�der�karäischen�Literatur, Leipzig, 1866, p. 15-18.

39. See H. GRAETZ, Geschichte�der�Juden�von�den�ältesten�Zeiten�bis�auf�die�Gegenwart, 11 vols., Leipzig, 1853-75; impr. and ext. ed. Leipzig, 1900; repr. Berlin, 1998; trans. B. LÖWY, History�of� the�Jews�from�the�Earliest�Times�to� the�Present�Day, 5 vols., London, 1891-92, vol. 5, p. 305ff. For another important later work of this kind, which also includes separate section devoted to Karaism, see BARON, Social�and�Religious�History, op.�cit., vol. 5, p. 223-226.

97104.indb 10897104.indb 108 12/08/14 08:4312/08/14 08:43


1862-69)40, devoted separate chapters or sections exclusively to Yefet, his life and oeuvre. At this time as well, Simha Pinsker brought out his land-mark anthology of Karaite texts, Likutei�Kadmoniyot (1860), which also included a selection of Yefetʼs texts41, whereas Moritz Steinschneider scru-tinized Yefet’s works, while describing polemical and apologetical texts written in Arabic by Muslims, Christians and Jews (1877).42

In the last two decades of the nineteenth century we witness a slowly growing interest in Yefet and his works, which resulted in increased edit-ing activity. Theodor Hofmann published (in German) Yefetʼs commen-tary on Psalm 22 (1880)43 and Klas August Reinhold Töttermann pre-sented an edition with Latin translation of Yefetʼs commentary on the first two chapters of the Book of Hosea (1880).44 A few years later, an impor-tant edition and (paraphrastic) English translation of Yefetʼs commentary on the Book of Daniel was prepared by David Samuel Margoliouth (1889).45

40. See J. FÜRST, Geschichte�des�Karäerthums. Bd. 2: Von�900�bis�1575�der�gewöhnlichen�Zeitrechnung, Leipzig, 1865; repr. Hildesheim, 1975, p. 124ff.

41. See PINSKER, Lickute�Kadmoniot, op.� cit., vol. 1, p. 169; vol. 2, p. 19-25, 181-185.It includes three poems (piyyutim) attributed to Yefet (two of them polemicizing against Jacob ben Samuel “the Obstinate”). For the possible attribution of one of these poems to Yefet, see also POZNAŃSKI, “The Karaite Literary Opponents”, art.�cit., (18), p. 235, par. [12] [= (1908), p. 27; BIRNBAUM (ed.), Karaite�Studies, op.�cit., p. 157]; ID., “Japhet”, art.�cit.; M. SOKOLOW (ed.), The�Commentary�of�Yefet�ben�Ali�on�Deuteronomy�xxxii, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Yeshiva University, 1974, p. xxxiv-xxxvii; LEHRMAN, A�Commentary, op.�cit., p. 9, 16. For the attribution of the same poem rather to Sahl ben Maṣliaḥ, see MANN, Texts, op.�cit., p. 26; NEMOY, Karaite�Anthology, op.�cit., p. 84, n. 2, p. 109-122 (111-122); ID., “The Epistle of Sahl ben Maṣlīaḥ”, Proceedings�of�the�American�Academy�for�Jewish�Research�38-39 (1972), p. 145-177 (145-146); WECHSLER, The�Arabic�Translation, op.�cit., p. 5, n. 25.

42. See M. STEINSCHNEIDER,�Polemische�und�apologetische�Literatur�in�arabischer�Sprache�zwischen�Muslimen,�Christen�und�Juden, Leipzig, 1877; repr. Charleston, 2010, p. 347-348, par. [23, 4]. Cf. also ID., Die�arabische�Literatur�der�Juden,�Frankfurt, 1902, p. 81-84, par. [44].

43. See T. HOFMANN (ed.), Arabische�Übersetzung�und�Erklärung�des�XXII.�Psalms�von�R.�Jephet�ben�Eli�ha-Baçri, Tübingen, 1880. This work includes a critical edition in Hebrew script of Yefetʼs translation and commentary on Ps. 22 (p. 7-13), followed by a translation into German (p. 13-21). The study is introduced by a very short, one-page preface, which contains brief information about Yefet, previous research on the exegete and his oeuvre, and the reason for publishing this particular psalm (p. 5).

44. See K. A. R. TÖTTERMANN, Die�Weissagungen�Hosea’s� bis� zur� ersten� assyrischen�Deportation�(I-VI,�3)�erläutert�von�Klas�August�Reinhold�Töttermann;�nebst�dem�Commentar�des�Karäers�Jephet�ben�Ali�zu�Hosea�Cap.�I-II,�3, Helsingfors, 1879; repr. Leipzig, 1880. This work includes a critical edition in Hebrew script (with Latin translation) of Yefetʼs translation and commentary on Hos. 1-2:3 (p. 89-131). The book is provided with an introduction in German, which provides explanatory comments on each verse (p. 1-88). This is preceded by a preface (also in German) that contains information about the historical circumstances in which the Book of Hosea was written (p. i-iv). A one-page errata (including corrigenda and addenda) is found at the end of the book (p. 133).

45. See D. S. MARGOLIOUTH (ed.), A�Commentary�on�the�Book�of�Daniel�by�Yefet�ibn�Ali�the�Karaite, Oxford, 1889. For the study of Yefet’s commentary on Daniel as an important

97104.indb 10997104.indb 109 12/08/14 08:4312/08/14 08:43


In the following decade, Hartwig Hirschfeld included a tentative edition of Yefetʼs commentary on Leviticus 23:15 in his collection of Arabic texts in Hebrew characters (1892) and in his article on the Arabic portion of the Cairo Genizah (1906). Later on, he also devoted a separate section to Yefet in his book on Hebrew grammarians and lexicographers (1926)46 while Israel Günzig edited and analyzed (in German) the first three chapters of Yefetʼs commentary on the Book of Proverbs (1898)47 (reviewed by Poznański).48 It is noteworthy that this publication is among the first to include (as part of the introduction) a more elaborated study of Yefet’s exegesis. Moreover, two annotated editions of Yefet’s translation (with short comments) of Joel and Amos, as well as Obadiah, Jonah, Micah and Nachum were presented (in Hungarian) by Dezsö Klein (1897) and Gyula Friedmann (1901).49 In this period, Latin was already completely supplanted in the scholarly research by modern languages.

This arduous editing enterprise continued towards the turn of the twenti-eth century with the publication of tentative editions of brief excerpts from Yefetʼs commentaries, which appeared in several articles by Samuel

comparative source, see below, n. 76. Cf. also B. SEPTIMUS, “Petrus Alfonsi on the Cultat Mecca”, Speculum 56/3� (1981), p. 517-533 (530, n. 55). For the revised edition of Margoliouth’s translation of Yefet’s commentary on Daniel, see Y. YARON (ed.), Angels�and�Fire:�Yefet�ben�Ali�Hallewi�on�Daniel�and�Nahum, Pleasanton, Calif., 2003, p. 4-237.

46. See H. HIRSCHFELD, Arabic�Chrestomathy� in�Hebrew�Characters:�with� a�Glossary, London, 1892, p. 109-116; ID., “The Arabic Portion of the Cairo Genizah at Cambridge. Sa‘adyāh’s Commentary on Exodus”, Jewish�Quarterly�Review, o.s., 18 (1906), p. 600-620 (614-620); ID., Literary�History, op.�cit., p. 32-34.

47. See I. GÜNZIG (ed.), Der�Commentar�des�Karäers�Jephet�ben�Ali�Halêvi�zu�den�Pro-verbien.� Zum� ersten� Male� nach� mehreren� Handschriften� edirt,� mit� einer� Einleitung� und�Anmerkungen�versehen, Krakau, 1898. This work includes a critical edition in Hebrew script (without translation) of Yefetʼs translation and commentary on Prov. 1-3 (p. i-xxxii). This is preceded by an introduction (in German), which consists of two chapters. One gives general background information about the Karaite movement and its major exegetes, including Yefet (p. 1-13), while the other is devoted exclusively to Yefet, his life and works, and his achieve-ments as a Bible exegete and grammarian (p. 14-30). The introduction is followed by notes to the edition (in German) (p. 31-50).

48. See S. POZNAŃSKI, “Review of�Der�Commentar�des�Karäers�Salmon�ben�Jerucham�zu�den�Klagenliedern:�Zum�ersten�Male�nach�der�Pariser�Handschrift�edirt�mit�einer�Einleitung�und�Anmerkungen�versehen�von�Dr.�Salomon�Feuerstein.�Krakau,�1898;�Der�Commentar�des�Karäers�Jephet�ben�Ali�Halêvi� zu�den�Proverbien.�Zum�ersten�Male�nach�mehreren�Hand-schriften�edirt,�mit�einer�Einleitung�und�Anmerkungen�versehen�von�Dr.�Israel�Günzig.�Kra-kau.�1898”, Jewish�Quarterly�Review, o.s., 13 (1901), p. 336-343.

49. See D. KLEIN, The�Arabic�Translation�of�the�Books�of�the�Prophets�Joel�and�Amos�by�an� Anonymous� Author,� Based� on� Codex� Huntington� 206, Budapest, 1897 (Hungarian); G. FRIEDMANN, The�Arabic�Translation�of�the�Books�of�the�Prophets�Obadiah,�Jonah,�Micah�and�Nachum�by� an�Anonymous�Author,�Based� on�Codex�Huntington� 206, Budapest, 1901 (Hungarian).

97104.indb 11097104.indb 110 12/08/14 08:4312/08/14 08:43


Poznański: on Karaite Miscellanies (Gen. 15:3) (1896)50, on Saadiaʼs anti-Karaite writings (Gen. 1:14; Gen. 49:14; Exod. 12:2; Lev. 23:5, 15; Deut. 16:1; Deut. 25:4; Deut. 33:18; 1 Sam. 20:27) (1898)51, on ʻAnan (Gen. 1:14; Deut. 33:4; Zech. 5:4, 5-8) (1902)52, on allegorical explana-tions of the law by the early Karaites (Gen. 15:12; 1 Sam. 14:32-35) (1913)53, in Abraham Heisz edition of Yefet’s translation of Zephaniah, Haggai and Zechariah (1902)54, and in Paul Kahleʼs publication on Arabic Bible translations (Gen. 8; Gen. 9:18-28) (1904).55

Hence, until the advent of twentieth century a number of editions of Yefetʼs commentaries on the Bible were prepared, but there were almost no publications devoted specifically to Yefet (although he was used as an important source of reference for broader studies of medieval Judaism as a whole and Karaism in particular, like those by Poznański).

The first half of the twentieth century was marked by individual attempts to analyze Yefetʼs oeuvre. Simon Maurice Lehrman devoted his unpublished doctoral dissertation to Yefetʼs commentary on the Book of Joel, which he edited and (paraphrastically) translated into English (1927).56 Jacob Mann,

50. See S. POZNAŃSKI, “Karaite�Miscellanies”, Jewish�Quarterly� Review, o.s.,�8 (1896), p. 681-704 (691-694); repr. in BIRNBAUM (ed.), Karaite�Studies, op.�cit., p. 235-258 (247-248).

51. See S. POZNAŃSKI, “The Anti-Karaite Writings of Saadiah Gaon”, Jewish�Quarterly�Review, o.s., 10 (1898), p. 238-276 (245-252); repr. in BIRNBAUM (ed.), Karaite�Studies, op.�cit., p. 89-127 (97-102).

52. See S. POZNAŃSKI, “Anan et ses écrits”, Revue�des�études� juives 44 (1902), p. 161-187; 45 (1902), p. 50-69, 176-203, (44:171-172, 177-178, 184-185).

53. See ID., “Allegorische Gesetzesauslegung bei den älteren Karäern”,� in Studies� in�Jewish�Literature�Issued�in�Honor�of�Professor�Kaufmann�Kohler, Berlin, 1913, p. 237-259. Poznański also mentions Yefet’s works in his article on a list of twenty-seven Karaite texts. See ID., “Une liste d’ouvrages caraïtes”, Revue�des�études�juives�72 (1921), p. 184-191 (186), par. [7].

54. See A. HEISZ, Eine�anonyme�arabische�Uebersetzung�und�Erklärung�der�Propheten�Zephanja,�Haggai�und�Zecharja,�Berlin, 1902; repr. Charleston, 2010.

55. See P. KAHLE, Die� arabische�Bibelübersetzungen.� Texte�mit�Glossar� und�Literaur-übersicht, Leipzig, 1904, p. 29-31.

56. See LEHRMAN, A�Commentary, op.� cit. This work includes a handwritten edition in Hebrew script (based on a unique Ms. BL Or. 2400) of Yefet’s commentary on Joel (p. i-lxxi) followed by the English translation of the edited text (p. 1-55), notes on the commentary (p. 1-11) and a glossary of Arabic-English words (p. 1-16). It opens with an introduction that contains information about Yefet’s life and works, the scholarship related to this exegete, his importance as an exegete and the rank he occupied among his coreligionists, the style of his commentary, his translation techniques and the exegetical methods he applied, his view on the dating of the book of Joel, polemical overtones present in his works, the question of script in which his commentaries were originally written, and finally, his influence on subsequent exegetes. A short description of Ms. and acknowledgements are found at the end of the intro-duction (p. 1-22). All this is preceded by an abstract of thesis (p. 1-2). Interestingly enough, as opposed to Lehrman’s tendentious article (written about forty years later) about Yefetʼs place in the history of Jewish exegesis, in which the author openly marginalizes the role

97104.indb 11197104.indb 111 12/08/14 08:4312/08/14 08:43


who considered Yefet “a most prominent Karaite Bible exegete”, authored a premier work, Texts� and�Studies� in� Jewish�History� and�Literature,� that came out in the 1930s; the second volume, entitled Karaitica, contains a short biography of Yefet and an extract from his works (piyyut) (1931-35).57 In addition, Adolf Posnanski made use of Yefet’s commentary on Genesis 49:10 in his study of medieval messianic interpretations of this biblical pas-sage (1904).58 Concurrently, the editing process continued to bear fruit in the form of several new publications such as Nahum Schorsteinʼs edition of Yefetʼs translation and commentary on the first two chapters of the Scroll of Ruth (1903)59, subsequently translated into Hebrew (though mistakenly attributed to Salmon ben Yerōḥam) by Isaac Dov Markon (1927)60, or

played by the Karaites in general, and Yefet in particular, in this thesis, he repeatedly expresses his deep appreciation for Yefet as “one of the most erudite of Karaite scholars, fully deserving our respect and study” (p. 17) and “an honest and kindly gentleman, conscientiously striving to interpret a difficult prophecy” (p. 5), who “did his best, in his own humble, often roundabout way, to foster a clearer understanding of the Bible” (p. 4). He also praises Yefet’s method as “the most correct”, accepting “the simplest explanation as the one nearest to the truth” (p. 15), and evaluates his works as “the most interesting and the most readable” of Karaite writting of the time (p. 18), including “the delightful, personal touches” (p. 5). Lehrman even comes to the conclusion that “had he not been eclipsed by the greater personality of Sa‘ādyah, there is no doubt that Jefeth would have figured very conspicuously among Biblical interpret-ers of all times” (p. 4). Cf. above, n. 15; below, n. 78.

57. See MANN, Texts, op.� cit., p. 30-33. An English translation of this Hebrew poem (piyyut) can be found in Leon Nemoy’s anthology of Karaite texts. See NEMOY, Karaite�Anthology, op.�cit., p. 107-108. See below, n. 79. Cf. also BARGÈS, Excerpta, op.�cit., p. xxiii-xxiv (Heb.), p. xxiv-xxv (Lat.).

58. See A. POSNANSKI, Schiloh:�ein�Beitrag�zur�Geschichte�der�Messiaslehre.�Erster�Teil:�Die�Auslegung�von�Genesis�49,�10�im�Altertume�bis�zu�Ende�des�Mittelalters,�Leipzig, 1904, p. 271-272 (analysis), p. lxix-lxx (text).

59. See N. SCHORSTEIN (ed.), Der�Commentar� des�Karäers� Jephet� ben� ’Ali� zum�Buche�Rûth,� zum� ersten�Male� nach� drei�Mss.� ediert,�mit� Einleitung� und�Anmerkungen� versehen, Berlin, 1903. This work includes a critical edition in Arabic script of Yefetʼs translation and commentary on Ruth 1-2 (p. iii-xxxii), and a general introduction with information about Yefet and his life, a short description of his commentary and its language, Yefetʼs exegetical approach, and his method of rendering the Bible into Arabic (p. 5-14). The edition is annotated in German (p. 15-18).

60. See I. D. MARKON, “The Commentary on the Scroll of Ruth by the Karaite Salomon ben Yerōḥam”, in Livre dʼHommage�à� la�mémoire� du�Dr� Samuel�Poznański� (1864-1921)�offert�par�les�amis�et�les�compagnons�du�travail�scientifique, Leipzig, 1927, p. 78-96 (Hebrew). For its attribution to Yefet, see L. E. MARWICK, “Review of The�Arabic�Commentary�of�Yefet�ben�ʻAli�the�Karaite�on�the�Book�of�Hosea,�Edited�from�Eight�Manuscripts�and�Provided�with�Critical�Notes�and�an� Introduction�by Philip Birnbaum, Ph.D. a thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of doctor of philosophy in the Dropsie College for Hebrew and Cognate Learning. Philadelphia, 1942”, Journal� of�Biblical� Literature 62 (1943), p. 37-43 (38-39); L. NEMOY, “Did Salmon ben Jeroham Compose a Commentary on Ruth?”, Jewish�Quarterly�Review, n.s., 39 (1948-49), p. 215-216. Cf. also Z. ANKORI, Karaites�in�Byzantium.�The�Formative�Years,� 970-1100, New York, 1959, p. 197, n. 105; NEMOY,

97104.indb 11297104.indb 112 12/08/14 08:4312/08/14 08:43


Hartwig Hirschfeldʼs publication of the commentary on Nahum (1911).61 At about the same time, Bernard Revel described Yefet’s life and works in Ozar�Yisrael (1911), whereas in the following decades, Isaac Markon and Salomon Skoss authored encyclopedia entries on Yefet for Jüdisches�Lexi-con (1927) and the Encyclopaedia�Judaica�(1931).62

Towards the middle of the twentieth century, an important pioneering, albeit still isolated, series of articles appeared about Yefetʼs exegesis; presented by Philip Birnbaum (1941-42), it accompanied his (?) edition of the Book of Hosea (1942)63 (reviewed by Marwick and Nemoy).64 Notwithstanding its unquestionable value, this publication offers a some-what tendentious and incoherent evaluation of Yefetʼs exegetical under-taking by claiming that it lacks originality and is “in the main a compilation”.65 At that time, E. Lawrence Marwick made an effort to systematize the data about the order of the books in the Bible codex avail-able to Yefet (1942-43)66 in addition to preparing an edition of Yefetʼs commentaries on the Minor Prophets (Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah) that was never published.67 He also presented an edition of Yefet’s

Karaite�Anthology, op.�cit., p. 71, n. 3. Cf. also Y. B. H. G. HALEVI and ‘OVADYAH (eds.), The�Commentary� on� the� Scroll� of� Ruth� by� the� Karaite� Salomon� ben� Yerōḥam, Ramle, 1998 (Hebrew).

61. See HIRSCHFELD, Jefeth�b.�Ali’s, op.�cit. This work includes an edition in Hebrew script of Yefetʼs translation and commentary on the Book of Nahum (p. 15-32), an English transla-tion of Yefetʼs rendition of the biblical text accompanied by an abridged translation of his commentary on this book (p. 33-42). An introduction provides general information about Yefet and his exegetical approach (p. 5-13). For the revised edition of Hirschfeld’s translation of Yefet’s commentary on Nahum, see YARON (ed.), Angels, op.�cit., p. 239-251.

62. See B. REVEL, “Yefet ben ‘Eli ha-Levi”, in J. D. EISENSTEIN (ed.), Ozar�Yisrael�and�Encylopedia�of�All�Matters�Concerning�Jews�and�Judaism, 10 vols., New York, 1911, vol. 5, p. 178b-179a (Hebrew); I. MARKON, “Jafet ben Ali Halewi”, in G. HERLITZ, B. KIRSCHNER (eds), Jüdisches� Lexicon.�Ein� enzyklopädisches�Handbuch� des� jüdischen�Wissens, 4 vols., Berlin, 1927, vol. 3, p. 122; S. E. SKOSS, “Jafet ben Ali ha-Levi”, in Encyclopaedia�Judaica�–�Das�Judentum�in�Geschichte�and�Gegenwart, 10 vols., Berlin, 1931, vol. 8, p. 754-759.

63. See BIRNBAUM, “Yefet”, art.�cit.; ID., The�Arabic�Commentary, op.�cit. In an e-mail communication from Philip Miller to Daniel Lasker (on March 6, 2012), Philip Miller recalls hearing from Marwick that he was the actual author of Birnbaum’s work. I am very grateful to Prof. Daniel Lasker for having provided me with this information.

64. See MARWICK, “Review”, art.�cit.; L. NEMOY, “Review of The�Arabic�Commentary�of�Yefet�ben�ʻAli�on�Hosea”, Jewish�Quarterly�Review, n.s., 33 (1942-43), p. 501-506.

65. See BIRNBAUM, “Yefet”, art.�cit., p. 53; ID., The�Arabic�Commentary, op.�cit., p. ix.66. See MARWICK, “The Order”, art.�cit.67. See L. E. MARWICK (ed.), Retribution�&�Redemption:�Yefet�Ben� ‘Eli� on� the�Minor�

Prophets.�A�Lost�Work�of�Lawrence�Marwick, n.p., n.d. [2003]. This work includes an edition of Yefetʼs translation and commentary on�Joel (p. 1-41), Amos (p. 43-120), Obadiah (p. 121-135), Jonah (p. 137-159), and Micah (p. 161-224).

97104.indb 11397104.indb 113 12/08/14 08:4312/08/14 08:43


commentary on Micah as part of his Ph.D. dissertation, which may have not survived (1937).68

In the second half of the twentieth century, new editions began to appear. Richard M. Bland devoted his as yet unpublished doctoral dissertation to a selected portion of Yefetʼs commentary on Ecclesiastes (Eccles. 1-6), which he edited and translated into English (1966)69; Ofra Hacohen edited, trans-lated into Hebrew, and provided a linguistic analysis of three chapters of his interpretation of the Book of Proverbs (Prov. 10-12) as part of her master’s thesis (1967)70; and Philip David Wendkos edited a significant part of the exegete’s commentary on the Book of Jeremiah (Jer. 1-36:14) (1969).71 Unfortunately, none of these important editions has so far been published.

Fragmentary editions of Yefetʼs commentaries were also provided by Moshe Zucker in his book on Saadia Gaon, which includes tentative editions

68. See E. I. SZADZUNSKI [= E. Lawrence Marwick], Yefet�ben�Ali’s�Arabic�Commentary�on�Micah, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Dropsie College, 1937. For the suggestion that this work may have not survived, see WALFISH and KIZILOV, Bibliographia,� op.� cit., p. 405.It stands to reason that Marwick employed this edition while preparing the above mentioned edi-tion of Yefet’s commentary on Minor Prophets. See MARWICK, Retribution, op.�cit. On the pos-sibility that Marwick prepared also an edition of Yefet’s commentary on Hosea, see above, n. 63.

69. See R. M. BLAND (ed.), The�Arabic�Commentary�of�Yephet�ben� ʻAli�on� the�Book�of�Ecclesiastes,�Chapters� 1-6, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, 1966. This work includes a critical edition in Hebrew script of Ecclesiastes 1-6 (p. 1-119) followed by a variae�lectiones and index (p. 120-140) as well as the English translation of the edited text (p. 141-303) with notes (p. 304-329) and a list of abbreviations (p. 330-334). It opens with an introduction on Yefetʼs interpretation of Ecclesiastes, his sources, influences, the style and method of his commentary, and finally, its linguistic characteristics (p. iv-xix). A descrip-tion of Mss., methods of editing, methods of translation, and notes (p. xx-xxxviii) is found at the end of the book. Cf. below, n. 94.

70. See O. HACOHEN, Book� of� Proverbs� (Chapters� 10‒12)� in� the� Commentary� of� the�Karaite�Yefet�Ha-Levi�(Abū�ʼAlī�Ḥasan�al-Baṣrī), unpublished M.A. thesis, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1967 (Hebrew). This work consists of a general introduction (p. i-v), a critical edition of Prov. 10-12 (p. 1-43), and their grammatical analysis (p. קב-א). On the possible influence of Yefet’s commentary on Proverbs on Midrash�Mishle, see e.g. B. L. VISOTZKY, Midrash�Mishle:�A�Critical�Edition�Based�on�Manuscripts�and�Early�Editions�with�an�Intro-duction�and�Annotated�Translation�of�Chapters�One�through�Ten, unpublished Ph.D. disserta-tion, Jewish Theological Seminary, 1982, p. 61-64.

71. See P. D. WENDKOS (ed.), The�Arabic�Commentary�of�Yefet�b.�Ali� the�Karaite�on�the�Book�of�Jeremiah:�150�Folios�Edited�from�Three�MSS�with�Critical�Notes, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Dropsie College, 1969. This work contains a critical edition in both Arabic and Hebrew scripts of Yefetʼs commentary on Jer. 1-36:14 (missing, completely or partially, Yefetʼs commentary on Jer. 1:1-2:16; 2:30-3:16; 3:19-22; 4:11-15; 5:9-13, 18-21; 7:27-14:19; 14:22-15:8; 15:10-25:38; 26:16-19; 28:1-11; 29:9-18; 30:10-11; 30:16; 30:17-21; 31:4-7, 21-22; 32:9-31, 32-35; 33:11-13; 36:14) (p. 1-205), followed by glossaries (partial concord-ance, p. 206-253; glossary of unusual words, p. 254-256), and a bibliography (p. 257-263).It also includes an introduction containing four chapters that deal with: biographical informa-tion about Yefet, the linguistic peculiarities of his commentary, sources and influences on his translation and commentary, and on the Mss. of his commentary on Jeremiah (p. iii-xvi).

97104.indb 11497104.indb 114 12/08/14 08:4312/08/14 08:43


of selected passages from Yefetʼs commentary on the Pentateuch (Gen. 4 and Lev. 20:3) (1959).72 Moreover, he made use of Yefetʼs Bible commen-taries (Exod. 4:13) in his analysis of distinct aspects of medieval Judaism, like his article on ʻisma (prophetic immunity to sin and error) in Islamic and Jewish literatures (1965).73

Naphtali Wieder, too, utilized Yefet and his works as an important source for his groundbreaking research on the Judean scrolls and Karaism, which examined the similarities between the Karaites and the sectaries of antiquity, as well as certain messianic concepts of the early Karaite ideology (1955, 1955-56, 1956, 1958, 1962).74 Finally, Colette Sirat, in a book on theories of supernatural visions in medieval Jewish thought, included excerpts from Yefetʼs commentary on Genesis (Gen. 15:1, 5; Gen. 28:12; Gen. 42:8) (1969).75

In this period as well, Zvi Ankori, who considered Yefet “the most indi-vidualistically minded and most original exegete” and called him “the objective master exegete” and “greatest of Karaite exegetes” (1959) made use of his writings (especially his commentary on Daniel) while analyzing certain Karaite responses to the current historical events and discussing the messianic doctrine of Yehuda Hadassi (1961).76 At about the same time, Simon Maurice Lehrman made a disappointing attempt to reconsider Yefet in the broader context of Biblical studies, without exhausting many of the available sources (1967).77 His article about Yefetʼs place in the history of Jewish exegesis is explicitly tendentious, as reflected in the author’s

72. See ZUCKER, Rav� Saadya� Gaon’s, op.� cit., p. 480-514 (493-498, 498-509). Cf. G. TAMANI, “La tradizione delle opere di Yefet b. Ali”, Bulletin�d’études�karaïtes 1 (1983), p. 27-76 (48), par. [10]. According to Tamani, this work contains Yefetʼs commentary on Gen. 1:4 and Gen. 4 (p. 443, n. 2, p. 493-495).

73. See M. ZUCKER, “The Problem of ʻIsma – Prophetic Immunity to Sin and Error in Islamic and Jewish Literatures”, Tarbiz�35 (1965), p. 149-73 (Hebrew).

74. See N. WIEDER, “The Doctrine of the Two Messiahs among the Karaites”, Journal�of�Jewish�Studies 6 (1955), p. 14-23; repr. in ID., The�Judean�Scrolls, op.�cit. (2005), p. 389-401; ID., “The Idea of a Second Coming of Moses”, Jewish�Quarterly�Review, n.s., 46 (1955-56), p. 356-366; ID., “The Qumran Sectaries and the Karaites”, Jewish�Quarterly�Review, n.s., 47 (1956), p. 97-113 and 269-292; repr. in ID., The�Judean�Scrolls, op.�cit. (2005), p. 333-375; ID., “Exegesis”, art.�cit., p. 75-106; repr. in ID., The�Judean�Scrolls, op.�cit. (2005), p. 441-478. Cf. also M. POLLIACK, “On the Question of the Pesher’s Influence on Karaite Exegesis”, in G. BRIN and B. NITZAN (eds), Fifty�Years�of�Dead�Sea�Scrolls�Research:�Studies�in�Memory�of�Jacob�Licht, Jerusalem, 2001, p. 275-294 (Hebrew); EAD., “Wherein”, art.�cit.

75. See C. SIRAT, Les� théories�des�visions� surnaturelles�dans� la�pensée� juive�du�Moyen�Âge,�Leiden, 1969, p. 52-55.

76. See ANKORI, Karaites, op.�cit., p. 8, 88-95, 212, 350, n. 138; ID., “Studies in the Mes-sianic Doctrine of Yehuda Hadassi”, Tarbiz�30 (1961), p. 186-208 (Hebrew).

77. See LEHRMAN, “Jephet”, art.�cit.

97104.indb 11597104.indb 115 12/08/14 08:4312/08/14 08:43


immoderate praises of rabbinic Judaism and open marginalization of the role played by the Karaites in general, and Yefet in particular.78

In addition, some of Yefetʼs writings (introduction and commentary on Ruth 1-2; “hymn” [piyyut]) were included in the leading English anthology of Karaite texts prepared by Leon Nemoy (1952)79, who considered Yefet (although, as mentioned above, not without reservations) “by far the most eminent of the Karaite Biblical commentators of the golden age (9th to 11th centuries) of Karaite literature” (1969).80

In a similar vein, but in a much more decisive way, Moshe Sokolow, in his inspiring Ph.D. dissertation (1974), described this Karaite commentator as “a thoroughly original exegete” and devoted an entire chapter to Yefetʼs originality81; as part of his study, he edited and translated into Hebrew Yefetʼs commentary on Haʼazinu (Deut. 32) employing a unique manu-script.82 Yefet’s commentary on this chapter of Deuteronomy was also the

78. For instance, the author states: “Despite the many vagaries of Karaite ill-conceived doctrines, of the fly-paper variety which attract everything that buzzes around until it is lured to its death, traditional Judaism owes much to Karaite scholars, for their knowledge of grammar and philology, exegesis and syntax of the Scriptures” (p. 241), or further: “It is only fair to admit that we [= Rabbanite Jews] have built mightily on flimsy Karaite foundations” (p. 242). See LEHRMAN, “Jephet”. Cf. above, n. 15. Cf. also above, n. 56.

79. See NEMOY, Karaite�Anthology, op.�cit., p. 83-108. The edition of this “hymn” (piyyut) was included in Mann’s book Karaitica. See MANN, Texts, op.�cit., p. 31-32. See above, n. 27. Cf. also BARGÈS, Excerpta, op.�cit., p. xxiii-xxiv (Heb.), p. xxiv-xxv (Lat.).

80. See L. NEMOY, “Yefeth Ben Ali Halewi”, in I. LANDMAN (ed.), The�Universal�Jewish�Encyclopedia, 10 vols., New York, 1969, vol. 10, p. 587a. In the same entry Nemoy still frames Yefet as a not too original condenser of exegetical achievements of his predecessors by stating that “to a considerable extent Yefeth is a compiler, rather than an original thinker”.

81. See SOKOLOW (ed.), The�Commentary� of� Yefet� ben�Ali, op.� cit., p. vi, and chap. ii, entitled “Yefetʼs Originality” (p. xxii-xxiv). Cf. also the author’s claim: “Superficially cat-egorized by most earlier investigators as an eclectic, insufficient attention has been paid to Yefetʼs originality. […] To be sure no exegete operates within a vacuum and it would be idle to maintain that Yefet is devoid of the influence of his predecessors. There is, however, a clear line of demarcation between downright eclecticism, merely copying previous and sundry opin-ions, and an eclecticism which modifies them in part” (p. xiv).

82. This study consists of an edition in Hebrew script based on a unique Ms. (with Hebrew translation) of Yefetʼs translation and commentary on Haʼazinu (Deut. 32) (p. 1-182). It ends with excerpts from Saadiaʼs commentary on Isa. 1:20, including a translation into Hebrew (p. 183-184), and from Shmuel bar Hofniʼs commentary on Haʼazinu,�along with a translation into Hebrew (p. 185-199) and selected bibliography (p. 200-203). The edition is preceded by an introduction (in English), which consists of two chapters that deal with Yefet and his relationship to other Karaite and Rabbanite exegetes (p. vi-xiii), and his exegetical method, the implicit references to his predecessors found in his commentary, his originality, and his influence on subsequent exegetes (p. xiv-xiii). The thesis begins with a preface, which pro-vides concise information on Yefet, the scholarship related to this exegete, and the Ms. employed for the edition (p. i-v). The preface concludes with excursuses on Yefetʼs authorship of a polemical Hebrew poem (cited in its entirety) and on Hebrew exegetical terms in Yefet’s commentaries (p. xxxiv-xxxvii).

97104.indb 11697104.indb 116 12/08/14 08:4312/08/14 08:43


topic of an article published by Sokolow about twenty years later (1993), in which the author compared Yefet’s interpretation of Haʼazinu with those offered by five other medieval Jewish exegetes (Rav Saadia Gaon, Rabbi Shmuel ben Hofni, Rabbi Aaron Ibn Sargado, Yehuda Hadassi, and Abu al-Hassan Altzuri).83 Moreover, he wrote an article in Hebrew on the nega-tion of Muslim sovereignty over the Land of Israel by two tenth-century Karaite exegetes in which Yefet’s commentary on Genesis 16 served as an important source text (1981).84

It is worth noting that Sokolowʼs study is among the first (together with those presented by Georges Vajda, and Haggai Ben-Shammai) to fully focus on Yefet in an attempt to analyze and assess his exegetical achievements. With few notable exceptions, most of the works devoted to this exegete and described above offer critical editions and/or translations of selected por-tions of his biblical commentaries with relatively short analytical introduc-tions, if any at all. Sokolowʼs work, moreover, heralds a shift, which com-menced to occur at that time, in the way Yefet was perceived by the scholars less as a compiler and more as an original and innovative exegete.

Also in the 1970s, Georges Vajda studied Yefetʼs commentary on the Book of Ecclesiastes (1971, 1975)85, while one of his articles included a passage from Yefetʼs commentary on Genesis (Gen. 4:8) (1972-73).86 At about the same time, D. R. G. Beattie studied and translated into English Yefet’s interpretation of Ruth (1977)87, whereas Haggai Ben-Shammai edited and translated into Hebrew the first five chapters of Yefetʼs com-mentary on the Book of Job as part of his master’s thesis (1972)88, yet only

83. See M. SOKOLOW, “Exegesis on Haʼazīnū�in the Geonic Period”, in H. BEN-SHAMMAI (ed.), Hebrew�and�Arabic� Studies� in�Honour�of� Joshua�Blau, Jerusalem, 1993, p. 397-414 (Hebrew).

84. See M. SOKOLOW, “The Negation of Muslim Sovereignty over the Land of Israel in Two Karaite Commentaries of the Tenth Century”, Shalem 3 (1981), p. 309-318 (Hebrew).

85. See G. VAJDA, Deux�commentaires�karaïtes�sur� l’Ecclésiaste, Leiden, 1971, p. 115-216. This work includes tentatively edited passages of: Pss. 62:13; 131:1; Eccles. 1:8; 1:10; 5:8; 7:16; 7:23-24; 9:11; 10:4 (p. 228-235). As regards the Book of Genesis, it includes a French translation of Gen. 2:7 and Gen. 2:9 (p. 211-212). See also ID., “Ōr�ha-šekhīnā. Com-pléments et autocritique”, Revue�des�études�juives 134 (1975), p. 133-135 (p. 211-212).

86. See G. VAJDA, “Liquṭey shikhḥah bi-sedeh ha-parshanut ha-qara’it” (“Glanes dʼexégèse karaïte”), Tarbiz 42 (1) (1972-73), p. 188-192 (190-192) (Eng. summary p. xi-xii) (Hebrew).

87. See D. R. G. BEATTIE, Jewish�Exegesis�of�the�Book�of�Ruth,�Sheffield, 1977.88. See H. BEN-SHAMMAI, The�Arabic�Commentary�of�Yefet�ben�ʻEli�on�the�Book�of�Job�

1-5, unpublished M.A. thesis, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1972 (Hebrew). It contains an edition in Hebrew script based on seven Mss. of Yefetʼs introduction as well as his Arabic translation and commentary (with Hebrew translation) on Job 1-5 (p. 1-126). This is followed by five chapters that provide a description of the manuscripts employed in the edition

97104.indb 11797104.indb 117 12/08/14 08:4312/08/14 08:43


his edition of Yefetʼs introduction and commentary on Job 1:1 have appeared in print (1980).89 Later on, this important biblical book became the subject of the unpublished Ph.D. dissertation of Haider Abbas Hussain (Job 1-10) (1986).90

A vital contribution to the study of this exegete was made by Ben- Shammai’s doctoral thesis (1977), unfortunately as yet unpublished, which thoroughly analyzes, inter�alios,�Yefetʼs philosophical-theological concepts on the basis of his biblical commentaries.91 As far as I am aware, it is among the first and so far one of the few works that offer an in-depth study of philosophical notions of the early Karaites (with the possible exceptionsof Georges Vajda’s studies and edition of al-Kitāb�al-Muḥtawī by Yūsuf al-Baṣīr [1985] as well as more panoramic studies by Daniel Lasker and the above mentioned book by Colette Sirat).92 Most importantly, the dissertation also includes a considerable number of critically edited texts.93 In addition,

(p. 127-137), their relationship and methods of editing (p. 138-142), as well as a study of Yefet’s introduction to Job (p. 142-145), his relationship to earlier and later Bible exegetes (p. 145-150), and the Judaeo-Arabic language he employed (p. 151-179). The work ends with glossary of unusual words (p. 180-185), notes to the introduction (p. 186-252), and bibliog-raphy (p. 254-256).

89. See J. BLAU, Judaeo-Arabic�Literature:�Selected�Texts, Jerusalem, 1980, p. 73-86.90. See H. A. HUSSAIN (ed.), Yefet�ben�Ali’s�Commentary�on�the�Hebrew�Text�of�the�Book�

of�Job�I-X, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of St. Andrews, 1986. This study con-sists of an edition in Hebrew script based on five Mss. of Yefetʼs translation and commentary on Job 1-10 (p. 1-187). It opens with an introduction on Yefetʼs life (in Baṣrah and Jerusalem) and his commentary on Job (p. i-xxxix), followed by a description of Mss. (p. xl-lxxvii), and a chapter that deals with Yefet and his relationship to Saadia Gaon (p. lxxviii-lxxxix). It ends with notes to the introduction (p. xc-cv), notes to the edition (p. cvi-cxl), and bibliography (p. cxl-cxlvii).

91. See H. BEN-SHAMMAI, The�Doctrines�of�Religious�Thought�of�Abû�Yûsuf�Ya‘qûb�al-Qirqisânî�and�Yefet�ben�‘Elî, 2 vols., unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1977 (Hebrew). The first volume consists of two major parts (entitled “Foundation of Religious Cognition” and “Theory of the Divine”), divided into seven chapters that deal with: vindication of rational speculation and its determination as a religious obligation (p. 8-35), exclusiveness of human knowledge (p. 36-49), sources of knowledge (p. 50-100), the limitations of human knowledge (p. 101-111), the created world and the existence of the Creator (p. 112-190), and revelation (p. 259-313). This is preceded by a general introduction providing definition of the subject and description of the sources (p. 1-7). The volume ends with a short epilogue (p. 314-323).

92. See G. VAJDA (ed.), Yūsuf�al-Baṣīr,�al-Kitāb�al-Muḥtawī, Leiden, 1985. For the studies by Daniel Lasker, see some references below, nn. 126, 127.

93. The second volume contains critically edited passages of Yefetʼs introductions to the commentaries on Genesis and Job, and excerpts from his commentaries on: Gen. 1:1, 2, 2-5, 5-6, 7, 20, 25, 26, 26-27, 30; 2:1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 16-17, 21; 3:1, 8, 15, 17, 22, 22-23, 24; 4:6-7; 6:5; 8:21; 12:2; 15:1, 5; 19:11; 22:1, 12; 27:19; 30:35; 41:7; Exod. 3:15; 4:1, 3-4, 8-9, 14; 11:4; 12:13; 15:25, 26; 19:3, 20; 20:1, 2, 3, 5-6, 9; 21:34; 24:10-11; 33:18-20; 35:3; Num. 12:6-7, 8; 14:18; 20:12-13; 22:6, 12, 25-30; 23:5; Deut. 3:26; 4:6, 39; 5:21-23; 6:4; 11:26-28, 29; 21:3; 30:6, 19; 32:7, 39, 50; 34:9; 1 Sam. 28:8-25; Isa. 40:22; 41:1; 43:10;

97104.indb 11897104.indb 118 12/08/14 08:4312/08/14 08:43


Ben-Shammai compiled a textbook, comprising, among other things, selected passages from the previously prepared (by Richard M. Bland) edi-tion of Yefetʼs commentary on Ecclesiastes (1976).94 Moreover, he authored several articles that dealt with the different existing versions and adaptations of Yefetʼs commentaries (1976, 1985), as well as the distinctive transmis-sion and traditions detected in his Bible translations (2000).95 Additionally, he wrote a number of articles, in which Yefet’s works, although not the main subject, constitutes a major source of comparative exegetical study, for example, his study of Karaite atomism (1985)96, his analysis of polemical elements in Saadiaʼs theory of prophecy (1988), or his important survey of Kalām in Medieval Jewish Philosophy (1995).97 Ben-Shammai also used Yefet and his works as an important source while discussing the idiosyn-cratic Karaite concept of the biblical� mudawwin (author-compiler of the biblical text) in various works, including a comparative overview of its place

45:7; 46:8-10; 47:9-10; 51:6; 55:1-2; 59:13; 63:17; 64:3; 66:1-2; Jer. 8:7; 32:19; 44:25; Ezek. 3:6, 19-21; 14:5; 18:32; 37:9, 13-14; Obad. 1, 3; Jonah 4:10-11; Hab. 2:18; Zech. 1:8; Pss. 8:3; 8:6; 9:18; 14:2-3; 19:10; 26:2; 28:5; 32:1-2; 49:11; 50:1; 59:6; 68:5; 89:7; 94:8-9; 103:20-22; 104:2, 4, 5, 31-32; 111:10; 119:18, 89-91; 135:6; 139:1-4: 139:2-5 (!), 14, 19-22; 145:15, 17; Prov. 3:12; 8:4-9, 22-23, 30-32; 10:8-9; 16:4-5, 25; 17:3, 5; 18:14; 22:4; 24:16-18; 30:1-6; Job 1:13-19; 2:10; 5:7; 9:3-4; 11:7; 12:5-7; 15:15-16; 23:8-9; 28:12-13, 27-28; 37:23 (p. 63-295). This is preceded by an introduction that contains a description of the manuscripts employed in the edition and their siglae, as well as the editorial policy that was followed. It also includes an edition of selected passages from al-Qirqisānī’s commentary on Genesis (p. 19-62). The volume ends with glossary of rare Arabic words (p. 296-314), corrections of misprints (p. 315-316), bibliography (p. 317-325), and English summary (p. i-xliv).

94. See H. BEN-SHAMMAI (ed.), From�the�Commentaries�of�Yefet�ben�ʻEli�and�Salmon�ben�Yeroḥam� on�Ecclesiastes� and�Psalms, Jerusalem, 1976 (Hebrew), p. 1-28 (Eccl. 1:1-2:1; 2:12-19; 3:1, 12-22; 5:1, 11-17). Cf. BLAND, The�Arabic�Commentary, op.�cit.

95. See H. BEN-SHAMMAI, “Edition and Versions in Yephet b. Ali’s Bible Commentary”, Alei�Sefer 2 (1976), p. 17-32 (Hebrew); ID., “The Commentary of Yefet ben ‘Eli the Karaite on Samuel I-II”, Kiryat�Sefer�60 (1985) (n. 3-4), p. 967-968 (Hebrew); ID., “On the Transmis-sion Tradition of Yefet ben ʻEli’s Bible Translations Judaeo-Arabic”, in H. BEN-SHAMMAI, E. BATAT, S. BUTBUL, D. SKLARE and S. STROUMSA (eds), Manuscripts�in�the�Firkovitch�Col-lections,�Yefet�ben� ʻEli�al-Basri,�Commentary�on�Genesis.�A�Sample�Catalogue, Jerusalem, 2000, p. 194-206.

96. See BEN-SHAMMAI, “Studies in Karaite Atomism”, art.� cit. This article includes a tentative edition of selected passages from Yefet’s commentaries on Exod. 4:3-4 and Isa. 51:6.

97. See H. BEN-SHAMMAI, “On a Polemical Element in Saadya’s Theory of Prophecy”, Jerusalem�Studies�in�Jewish�Thought 7 (1988), p. 127-146; ID., “Kalām in Medieval Jewish Philosophy”, in D. FRANK (ed.), History�of�Jewish�Philosophy, Leiden, 1995, p. 115-148. See also ID., “Turn it Over Again: In Response to the Article by Meira Polliack and Somekh Sasson ‘Two Hebrew-Arabic Biblical Glosses from the Cairo Genizahʼ [Peʻamim�83 (2000), p. 15-47]”, Peʻamim 88 (2001), p. 124-138 (Hebrew); ID., “Jerusalem in Early Medieval Jewish Bible Exegesis”, in L. I. LEVINE�(ed.), Jerusalem:�its�Sanctity�and�Centrality�to�Juda-ism,�Christianity�and�Islam, New York, 1999, p. 447-464.

97104.indb 11997104.indb 119 12/08/14 08:4312/08/14 08:43


in Judaeo-Arabic exegesis and the possible influence of the writings of the Brethren of Purity on its development in a recent article (2009).98 Last but not least, Ben-Shammaiʼs entry in the new, second edition of the Encyclo-paedia� Judaica testifies to the paradigmatic shift which has occurred in recent decades in the scholarly study of Yefet, wherein he has ceased to be framed and described as a not too original condenser and adaptor of previ-ous exegetical achievements, and is being increasingly thought of as one of the most innovative and original Bible interpreters of the medieval period (2006-07).99

In the 1980s, Joshua Blau, best known for his pioneering contribution to the study of Judaeo-Arabic language (he authored the first, and as yet unique, grammar and dictionary of this language)100, published a book that included Ben-Shammaiʼs edition of Yefetʼs introduction and commentary on Job 1:1 (1980).101 Shortly thereafter, Uriel Simon decided to scrutinize Yefetʼs commentary on the Book of Psalms while describing four different exegetical approaches to this book (1982). In this work Simon thoroughly studied the concept of the biblical mudawwin in Yefet’s commentary on Psalms, showing how it served as an important tool in the exegete’s analysis of the historical process behind the formation of the biblical text. This dis-sertation (reviewed by Haggai Ben-Shammai)102 was subsequently published as a book and translated into English (1991).103 In the same decade, Samuel Miklos Stern used Yefetʼs texts as historical evidence of Fatimid propa-ganda among the Jews (1983)104, whereas Georges Vajda described several

98. See especially H. BEN-SHAMMAI, “On Mudawwin – the Editor of the Books of the Bible in Judaeo-Arabic Exegesis”, in J. HACKER, B. Z. KEDAR and J. KAPLAN (eds), From�Sages� to� Savants:� Studies� in� Jewish�History�Presented� to�Avraham�Grossman, Jerusalem, 2009, p. 73-110 (Hebrew). See also BEN-SHAMMAI, “Review: Uriel Simon, Four Approaches to the Book of Psalms: from Saadya Gaon to Abraham ibn Ezra”, Kiryat�Sefer�58 (1983), p. 400-405 (Hebrew). For a study of the development of a theory of biblical redaction and the concept of biblical redactor (sadran) in later Karaite exegesis in Byzantium, in which Yefet is being employed as a comparative source, see R. C. STEINER, “A Jewish Theory of Biblical Redaction from Byzantium: its Rabbinic Roots, its Diffusion and its Encounter with the Mus-lim Doctrine of Falsification”, Jewish Studies.�An�Internet�Journal 2 (2003), p. 123-167.

99. See BEN-SHAMMAI, “Japheth”, art.�cit., p. 86-87.100. See above, n. 5.101. See BLAU, Judaeo-Arabic�Literature,�op.�cit., p. 73-86.102. See BEN-SHAMMAI, “Review”, art.�cit.103. See U. SIMON, Four� Approaches� to� the� Book� of� Psalms:� from� Saadiah�Gaon� to�

Abraham�ibn�Ezra, Ramat Gan, 1982 (Hebrew); Eng. trans. L. J. SCHRAMM, Albany, 1991.104. See S. M. STERN, “Fatimid Propaganda among Jews According to the Testimony of

Yefet b. ʻAli the Karaite”, in ID. (ed.), Studies� in�Early� Ismāʻīlism, Jerusalem and Leiden, 1983, p. 84-95.

97104.indb 12097104.indb 120 12/08/14 08:4312/08/14 08:43


of Yefetʼs eschatological concepts (1980), as well as his attitude toward certain rabbinic aggadot�(1982).105

The question of the exegete’s attitude towards aggadah was also addressed by Philip E. Miller, who made use of, inter�alios, Yefet’s commentary on Jonah to demonstrate that the Karaites were not always averse to employing certain aggadic materials, perceiving them as underlying the plain meaning of the Bible and therefore feeling no contradiction between them and their adherence to the plain meaning of the Bible (1992).106 Incidentally, in this article, the author announces that it is his intention “to publish the entire text [= of Yefet’s commentary on Jonah] with critical notes in the near future” (p. 216, n. 16), but as far as I know, it has not appeared so far.

In addition, Bruno Chiesa studied Yefet’s commentary on Ecclesiastes (Eccl. 4:8-12, but also Prov. 29:18) in an attempt to demonstrate the “insta-bility” of transmission of Yefet’s oeuvre, and, by doing so, to disprove the theory of the alleged two recensions of his exegetical works, inspired — in Chiesa’s opinion — by numerous additions and expansions made by later copyists (1985).107 He also authored a number of articles in which Yefet’s

105. See G. VAJDA, “The Opinions of the Karaite R. Yefeth b. Ali on the Destruction of the World in the End of the Days”, in S. W. BARON and I. BARZILAY (eds), American�Academy�for�Jewish�Research�Jubilee�Volume, Jerusalem, 1980, p. 85-95 (Hebrew); repr. in Proceed-ings� of� the�American�Academy� for� Jewish�Research 46-47 (1979-80), p. 85-95 (Hebrew).This article includes tentative edition of selected passages from Yefet’s commentaries on Isa. 30:26; 51:6; 65:16, 17; 66:22; Ps. 102, 27. See also ID., “Quelques aggadot critiquées par Yefet ben ʻEli”, in Studies�in�Judaica,�Karaitica�and�Islamica�Presented�to�Leon�Nemoy, Ramat Gan, 1982, p. 155-62. See also ID., “Sagesse humaine et morale révélée d’après quelques théologiens juifs du haut Moyen Âge”, in Sagesse�et�religion.�Colloque�de�Stras-bourg�(octobre�1976), Paris, 1979, p. 127-134 (131).

106. See P. E. MILLER, “Was there Karaite Aggadah?”, in H. J. BLUMBERG, B. BRAUDE, B. H. MEHLMAN, J. S. GURLAND and L. Y. GUTTERMAN (eds), “Open�Thou�Mine�Eyes…”�Essays� on�Aggadah� and� Judaica�Presented� to� Rabbi�William�G.� Braude� on� his� Eightieth�Birthday�and�Dedicated�to�his�Memory, Hoboken, 1992, p. 209-218 (216-217).

107. See B. CHIESA, “Il Commento a Qohelet di Yefet ben ‘Alī”, Annali�della�Facoltà�di�Lingue�e�Letterature�Straniere�di�Caʼ�Foscari�13 (3) (1985), p. 1-16. The theory of two recen-sions of Yefet’s Bible commentaries was first suggested by Poznański and subsequently accepted by other scholars as a fact. It was first disputed and disproved by Ben-Shammai in his article on edition and versions in Yephet b. Ali’s Bible commentary (1976). Chiesa’s article brings further arguments against this once commonly accepted view. See POZNAŃSKI, “The Karaite Literary Opponents”, art.�cit., (18), p. 229 [= (1908), p. 21; BIRNBAUM (ed.), Karaite�Studies, op.�cit., p. 151]; ID., “The Anti-Karaite Writings”, art.�cit., p. 249, n. 3 [= BIRNBAUM (ed.), Karaite�Studies, op.�cit., p. 100, n. 3]; ID., “Anan”, (44), art.�cit., p. 178, n. 3. Cf. also LEHRMAN, A� Commentary, op.� cit., p. 4, 6, 15; ID., “Jephet”, art.� cit., p. 233-234; G. MARGOLIOUTH, Catalogue� of� the� Hebrew� and� Samaritan� Manuscripts� in� the� British�Museum, 4 vols., London, 1899-1935; repr. 1965, Part I, p. 251, xvi, par. [326]; M. STEIN-SCHNEIDER, “An Introduction to the Arabic Literature of the Jews”, Jewish�Quarterly�Review, o.s., 9 (1897), p. 604-630; 10 (1898), p. 115-149; 11 (1899), p. 305-343; 12 (1900), p. 114-132; 13 (1900-1901), p. 446–487; repr. in ID., An�Introduction�to�the�Arabic�Literature�of�the�

97104.indb 12197104.indb 121 12/08/14 08:4312/08/14 08:43


commentaries, although not the main subject, constitutes a major source of comparative study (2001).108

These almost unprecedented analytical endeavors heralded a breakthrough in the study of Karaism as a whole, and thus Yefet — his role and impor-tance as an exegete — as well, which led to the publication of several new editions, and additional relevant analytical studies. The major impetus behind the recent efflorescence in the development of this scholarly disci-pline was the re-opening of Russian libraries to Western scholars. As a result, many forgotten or underestimated Karaite authors were rediscovered, and many works, considered lost until then, were recovered.

Geoffrey Khan was among the first scholars to utilize manuscripts from the Firkovitch collections in his important reconstructions of the Karaite transliteration system of the Hebrew Bible (1990) and in his work on the early and classical Karaite grammatical traditions (2000, 2001, 2003).109 In these ground-breaking works Khan illuminated the Jerusalem Karaites’ innovative linguistic notions and also highlighted the profound connection between grammar and exegesis in the Karaite understanding of the Bible.

This led in turn to a new appreciation of certain aspects of Yefet’s exe-getical works. Accordingly, during the past decades, we have witnessed growing interest in this outstanding exegete. Among other scholars Meira

Jews, London, 1901 ([13], p. 314); ID., Polemische� und� apologetische�Literatur, op.� cit., p. 81-82, par. [44]; A. SCHENKER, “Der Karäer Jafet ben Eli, die Buyiden und das Datum seines Danielkommentars”, Bulletin�d’études�karaïtes 1 (1983), p. 19-26 (25); SKOSS, “Jafet”, art.� cit., p. 757. On the alleged second recension of Yefet’s commentary on Psalms, see S. POZNAŃSKI, “Review of G. Margoliouth, Catalogue of Hebrew and Samaritan Manuscripts in the British Museum, Part 1 (London, 1899)”, Revue�des�études�juives 41 (1900), p. 301-308 (306). For later arguments disputing and disproving this hypothesis, see BEN-SHAMMAI, “Edition and Versions”, art.�cit.; F. E. BLUMFIELD, The�Commentary�of�Yefet�ben�ʻEli�on�the�Book�of�Ruth�–�Studies�in�Translation�and�Exegetical�Techniques, unpublished Ph.D. dis-sertation, London University, 2001, p. 32, 325, 328; KHAN, “On the Question”, art.� cit.; WECHSLER, The�Arabic�Translation, op.�cit., p. 4. Cf. also SASSON, Methods�and�Approach, op.�cit., p. 61.

108. See B. CHIESA, “Isaia 56:6-7 According to Some Jewish Exegetes of the 10th Cen-tury”, in A. NICCACCI (ed.), Jerusalem�House�of�Prayer�for�All�Peoples�in�the�Three�Mono-theistic�Religions,�Jerusalem, 2001, p. 135-140.

109. See G. KHAN, Karaite�Bible�Manuscripts�from�the�Cairo�Genizah, Cambridge, 1990; ID. (ed. and trans.), The�Early�Karaite�Tradition�of�Hebrew�Grammatical�Thought,�Including�a�Critical�Edition,�Translation�and�Analysis�of�the�Diqduq�of�Abū�Yaʻqūb�Yūsuf�ibn�Nūḥ�on�the�Hagiographa, Leiden, 2000; ID., Early�Karaite�Grammatical�Texts, Atlanta, 2000; ID. (ed.), Exegesis� and�Grammar� in�Medieval�Karaite� Texts, Oxford, 2001; ID., The�Karaite�Tradition� of�Hebrew�Grammatical� Thought� in� its�Classical�Form:�A�Critical�Edition� and�English�Translation�of�al-Kitāb al-Kāfi fī al-Luġa al-ʿIbrāniyya by�Abu�al-Faraj�Harun�ibn�al-Faraj,�Leiden, 2003; ID., “The Contribution of the Karaites to the Study of the Hebrew Language”, in POLLIACK (ed.), Karaite�Judaism, op.�cit., p. 291-318.

97104.indb 12297104.indb 122 12/08/14 08:4312/08/14 08:43


Polliack charted out the idiosyncratic features of the Karaite translation tra-dition of the Bible in her illuminating Ph.D. dissertation (1993), which was significantly expanded into a book (1997)110 (reviewed by Joshua Blau, Simon Hopkins).111 This book offered a comparative structural study of vari-ous Karaite translations, giving a most prominent place to Yefet’s works.112 Furthermore, in a number of significant articles, Polliack endeavored to reap-praise Yefetʼs achievements against the backdrop of contemporary Karaite exegesis, while attempting at the same time to reintegrate him in the history of Jewish exegesis as a whole (1999, 2001, 2002, 2006, 2012).113 Her edited work, Karaite�Judaism�a�Guide�to� its�History�and�Literary�Sources (2003) — most relevant for the study of Karaism as a whole — included an

110. See M. POLLIACK, The�Karaite�Tradition�of�Arabic�Bible�Translation:�A�Linguistic�and�Exegetical�Study�of�Karaite�Translations�of�the�Pentateuch�from�the�Tenth�and�Eleventh�Centuries�C.E., Leiden, 1997. The latter publication includes a tentative edition of a selected portion of Yefetʼs introduction to his commentary on Genesis and his translation of Gen. 2-3 (p. 293-294, 305-306).

111. See J. BLAU, “On Karaite Translations of the Bible into Arabic from the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries”, Tarbiz 67 (1998), p. 417-430 (Hebrew); S. HOPKINS, “Review of Meira Polliack, The�Karaite� Tradition� of� Arabic�Bible� Translation:�A� Linguistic� and�Exegetical�Study�of�Karaite�Translations�of�the�Pentateuch�from�the�Tenth�and�Eleventh�Centuries�C.E. Leiden, 1997. p. xx + 338”, Jewish�Quarterly�Review 89 (1999), p. 426-431.

112. It put forward a detailed taxonomy of the Karaite School’s translation system of the Bible, one in which Yefet’s works played a significant part, highlighting the innovativeness, and distinctiveness of his (and other Karaites translators’) approach to the Arabic rendering of the Bible and its tentative connection to wider (Christian, Samaritan, Saadianic) translation tradition. Cf. also M. POLLIACK, “Arabic Bible Translations”, in G. KHAN et�al.�(eds), Ency-clopedia�of�Hebrew�Language�and�Linguistics, 4 vols., Leiden, 2012, vol.1, p. 128-137. Spe-cific aspects of Yefet’s translation methodology were also highlighted in additional articles: M. POLLIACK, “Medieval Karaite Views on Translating the Bible into Arabic”, Journal� of�Jewish�Studies 47 (1996), p. 64-84; EAD., “Medieval Karaite Methods of Translating Biblical Narrative into Arabic”, Vetus�Testamentum 48/3 (1998), p. 375-398; EAD., “Karaite Transla-tion Techniques in the Arabic Rendering of Biblical Narrative According to Genesis 2:15-25”, in R. KASHER and M. ZIPOR (eds), Studies�in�Bible�and�Exegesis VI, Ramat Gan, 2002, p. 217-233 (Hebrew).

113. See POLLIACK, “Medieval Karaism”, art.�cit.; EAD., “Historicizing Prophetic Literature: Yefet’s Commentary on Hosea and its Relationship to al-Qūmisī’s Pitron”, in J. L. KRAEMER and M. G. WECHSLER (eds), Pesher�Nahum:�Texts�and�Studies�in�Jewish�History�and�Litera-ture�from�Antiquity�through�the�Middle�Ages�Presented�to�Norman�Golb, Chicago, 2012; EAD., “Concepts of Scripture among the Jews of the Medieval Islamic World”, in B. D. SOMMER (ed.), Jewish� Conceptions� of� Scripture:� A� Comparative� Introduction, New York, 2012, p. 80-101. See also EAD., “Medieval Oriental Exegesis on the Character of Jacob in Hosea 12”, in J. TARGARONA BORRÁS and A. SÁENZ-BADILLOS (eds), Jewish�Studies�at�the�Turn�of�the�Twentieth�Century.�Proceedings�of�the�Sixth�European�Association�of�Jewish�Studies�Con-gress, 2 vols., Leiden, 1999, vol. 1, p. 177-187; EAD., “Turn it Over Again”, Peʻamim 88 (2001), p. 139-150 (Hebrew); EAD., “Rethinking Karaism: between Judaism and Islam”, AJS�Review 30 (2006), p. 67-93. Cf. also M. POLLIACK and K. SHALEM, “An Anonymous Genizah Commentary on Joel 1:1-12 and Biblical Symbols of the Four Kingdoms”, Ginzei�Qedem�1 (2005), p. 171-243 (Hebrew).

97104.indb 12397104.indb 123 12/08/14 08:4312/08/14 08:43


extensive chapter on trends in Karaite exegesis, particularly highlighting Yefet’s innovative conceptions as a Bible exegete.114 In this and in several subsequent articles (2005, 2008, 2012) Polliack explored Yefet’s literary sensibilities as an exegete and his understanding of the Bible as literature, including his notions on biblical gapping and authorship. In these may be found a detailed analysis of Yefet’s concept of the mudawwin. Polliack put stress on the literary nature and narrative functions of this concept in Yefet’s works, showing how it served as a primary tool in his understanding of the Bible’s formation as a text.115

Moreover, Meira Polliack and Eliezer Schlossberg published and anno-tated Yefetʼs translation of the Book of Obadiah (2001). This cooperative effort was extended to an edition and Hebrew translation of Yefetʼs com-mentary on Hosea, which is preceded by a long introduction containing an in-depth analysis of various aspects of Yefetʼs exegetical undertaking (2009).116 This analysis, along with a joint article on the diverse methods of interpretation employed by Yefet in his introduction to the Minor Prophets (2001), constitutes one of the most significant and extensive attempts thus

114. See M. POLLIACK, “Major Trends in Karaite Biblical Exegesis in the Tenth and Elev-enth Centuries”, in EAD. (ed.), Karaite�Judaism, op.�cit., p. 363-413.

115. See M. POLLIACK, “Karaite Conception of the Biblical Narrator (Mudawwin)”, in J. NEUSNER and A. J. AVERY-PECK (eds), Encyclopaedia�of�Midrash, 2 vols., Leiden, 2005, vol. 1, p. 350-374; EAD., “Karaite Exegetes’ Literary Approach to the Torah: The Story of Eve’s Creation (Gen. 2:15-25)”, ‘Al�ha-Pereq:�Brossure�For�Bible�Teachers�in�Public�Schools�20 (2005), p. 15-22 (Hebrew); EAD., “The ‘Voice’ of the Characters in the Bible Commentaries of Yefet ben ʻEli”, in C. COHEN, A. HUROWITZ, A. HURVITZ, Y. MUFFS, B. SCHWARTZ and J. TIGAY (eds), Birkat� Shalom�–�Studies� in� the�Bible,�Ancient�Near�Eastern�Literature� and�Post-biblical�Judaism,�Presented�to�Shalom�M.�Paul�on�the�Occasion�of�his�Seventieth�Birth-day, Winona Lake, 2008, p. 891-915; EAD., “The Unseen Joints of the Text: On Medieval Judaeo-Arabic Concept of Ellision (iḫtiṣār) and its Gap-filling Functions in Biblical Interpre-tation”, in A. BRENNER and F. POLAK�(eds.), Words,�Ideas,�Worlds�in�the�Hebrew�Bible�—�The�Yairah�Amit�Festschrift, Sheffield, 2012, p. 179-205; EAD., “Qisas�wa-akhbar�jarata: Karaite Distinctions of Biblical Genre in the Work of the Biblical Mudawwin”, in M. A. GALLEGO and J. P. MONFERRER-SALA (eds), The�Semitic�Languages�of�Jewish�Intellectual�Production, Memorial volume for Dr. Friedrich Niessen, Leiden, forthcoming. Several other works focused on the editorial functions of Yefet’s concept of the mudawwin, particularly in respect of his approach to prophetic literature. See POLLIACK and SCHLOSSBERG, Commentary�of�Yefet�ben�ʻEli�the�Karaite�on�the�Book�of�Hosea, Ramat Gan, 2009 (Hebrew), p. 50-58; and EID., “His-toricizing”, art.�cit. Cf. also M. POLLIACK, “Biblical Narrative and the Textualization of Oral Tradition: Innovations in Medieval Judaeo-Arabic Bible Exegesis”, in A. A. HUSSEIN and A. OETTINGER (eds),� Beyn� ‘Ebher� la-‘Arabh, VI: Contacts� between�Arabic�Literature� and�Jewish�Literature�in�the�Middle�Ages�and�Modern�Times,�A�Collection�of�Studies�Dedicated�to�Prof.�Yosef�Tobi�on�the�Occasion�of�his�Retirement, Tel Aviv, 2014, p. 109-150 (Hebrew).

116. See M. POLLIACK and E. SCHLOSSBERG, “Yefet ben ʻEli’s Translation of the Book of Obadiah”, Pe‘amim 89 (2001), p. 61-82 (Hebrew); EID., Commentary�of�Yefet�ben�ʻEli, op.�cit.

97104.indb 12497104.indb 124 12/08/14 08:4312/08/14 08:43


far published to analyze Yefetʼs approach to the Bible in terms of his exe-getical concepts and methods.117 Eliezer Schlossberg also authored several articles on later adaptations and Hebrew translations of Yefet’s interpreta-tion of two of the Minor Prophets (Jonah and Malachi) (2000, 2005, 2009) and is currently working (together with Michal Tzarfati-Diminski) on Yefet’s commentary on Zephaniah.118

In addition, Yefet was a major focus of several articles written by Yoram Erder, which dealt with certain philosophical-theological and polemical fac-ets of the exegete’s commentaries on Exodus and Psalms (1997, 1999).119 He also used Yefetʼs works as an important source text for his as far unpub-lished Ph.D. dissertation on certain temporal notions of the early Karaite halakhah and his illuminating study on the Karaite Mourners of Zion (2004).120 Erder also authored a couple of publications in which he heavily relied on Yefet’s texts while discussing different halakhic and ideological notions of the early Karaites (2001, 2003, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2013).121

117. See M. POLLIACK and E. SCHLOSSBERG, “Historical-Literary, Rhetorical and Redac-tional Methods of Interpretation in Yefet ben ʻEli’s Introduction to the Minor Prophets”, in KHAN (ed.),�Exegesis, op.�cit., p. 1-39. See also M. POLLIACK and M. ZAWANOWSKA, “ʻGod Would not Give the Land, but to the Obedientʼ: Medieval Karaite Responses to the Curse of Canaan (Genesis 9:25)”, in K. BERTHELOT, J. DAVID and M. HIRSHMAN (eds), The�Gift�of�the�Land�and� the�Fate� of� the�Canaanites� in� the�History� of� Jewish�Thought,� from�Antiquity� tothe�Modern�Period, Oxford, 2014, p. 112-152.

118. See E. SCHLOSSBERG, “An Early Adaptation of Yefet ben ʻElī’s Arabic Translation of the Book of Malʼachi”, in B. ABRAHAMOV (ed.), Studies� in�Arabic�and� Islamic�Culture, Ramat Gan, 2000, p. 129-155 (Hebrew); ID., “The Interpretation of Yefet ben ʻEli the Karaite on the Book of Jonah in the Hebrew Translation from the Middle Ages”, Kobez�al�Yad, n.s., 18 (2005), p. 81-121 (Hebrew); ID., “Studies in a Hebrew Translation from the Middle Ages of the Commentary of Yefet ben ʻEli the Karaite to the Book of Jonah”, in D. J. LASKER and H. BEN-SHAMMAI�(eds),�Ale�Asor, Beer Sheva, 2009, p. 269-288 (Hebrew).

119. See Y. ERDER, “The Attitude of the Karaite Yefet ben ʻEli to Islam in the Light of his Interpretation of Psalm 14:53”, Michael 14 (1997), p. 29-49 (Hebrew); ID., “The Attitude of the Karaite Yefet ben ʻEli to Moral Issues in the Light of his Interpretation of Exodus 3:21-22”, Sefunot 22 (1999), p. 313-333 (Hebrew).

120. See Y. ERDER, The�Origins�of�Early�Karaism�and�Outlines�of�its�Development�in�the�Light�of�the�Controversies�over�the�Time�of�the�Paschal�Sacrifice, 2 vols., unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Tel Aviv University, 1988 (Hebrew); ID., The�Karaite�Mourners�of�Zion�and�the�Qumran� Scrolls;�On� the�History� of� an�Alternative� to�Rabbanite� Judaism, Tel Aviv, 2004 (Hebrew). This publication is currently being translated into English.

121. See Y. ERDER, “The Altar of the Covenant at Mount Sinai (Exodus 24:4-5)”, Te‘uda�16-17 (2001), p. 315-357 (Hebrew); ID., “The Prince Mastema in a Karaite Work”, Meghillot�1 (2003), p. 243-246 (Hebrew) (this article focuses on Yefet’s interpretation of Exod. 32:1-4); ID., “The Desert and the Teacher of Righteousness Motifs in the Messianic Doctrine of the Karaite Mourners of Zion”, Meghillot.�Studies�in�the�Dead�Sea�Scrolls�5-6 (2008), p. 31-47 (Hebrew); ID., “The Sectarian Polemic in the Second Temple Period Concerning the Issue of the Half-Shekel, in Light of the Early Karaite Halakhah”, Meghillot.�Studies�in�the�Dead�Sea�Scrolls�8-9 (2010), p. 3-28 (Hebrew) (I am thankful to the author for bringing these articles

97104.indb 12597104.indb 125 12/08/14 08:4312/08/14 08:43


Furthermore, Daniel Frank utilized Yefet as a paramount and exemplary point of reference for his extensive research on Karaite exegesis, which was published in a series of very important articles (1995, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2008)122 some of which were subsequently incorporated in a book (2004).123 The additional advantage of this perspective is that Frank’s work includes tentative editions of selected passages from Yefetʼs Bible commentaries.124 Another important contribution of this scholar to the study of Yefet is his landmark article on the limits of Karaite scripturalism, in which he demon-strated that, against the commonly acknowledged opinion, the exegete was willing to press midrashic explanations into service insofar as they were not contradicted by reason, and could be substantiated through Scripture. In this publication, Yefet is again the protagonist, and tentative editions and transla-tions of selected passages from his commentary on various biblical books are also included (2007).125

to my attention); ID., “The Impaling of Saul’s Descendants by the Gibeonites: Values of Divine Justice versus Peshat in Early Karaite Commentaries”, Ginzei�Qedem�8 (2012), p. 31-65 (Hebrew); ID., Methods� in� Early� Karaite� Halakha, Tel Aviv, 2012 (Hebrew); ID., “The Karaites and Mu῾tazilism”, in A. MEDDEB and B. STORA (eds), A�History�of�Jewish-Muslim�Relations�from�the�Origins�to�the�Present�Day, Princeton and Oxford, 2013, p. 778-787; ID., “The Split between the Rabbanite and Karaite Communities in the Geonic Period”, Zion�78 (2013), p. 321-349 (Hebrew).

122. See D. FRANK, “The Shoshanim of the Tenth-Century Jerusalem: Karaite Exegesis, Prayer and Communal Identity”, in ID. (ed.), The� Jews� of�Medieval� Islam, Leiden, 1995, p. 199-245; repr. in ID., Search, op.�cit., p. 165-203; ID., “Exegesis”, art.�cit. Cf. ID., Search, op.�cit., p. 1-32; ID., “The Voice of the Turtledove Is Heard in our Land: The Commentaries of the Karaites Salmon ben Jeroham and Japhet ben Eli on the Song of Songs”, in Interna-tional�Rennert�Guest�Lecture�Series,�Ramat Gan, 2001, p. 199-245 (Hebrew); ID., “Karaite Commentaries on the Song of Songs from Tenth-Century Jerusalem” in J. D. MCAULIFFE, B. D. WALFISH and J. W. GOERING (eds), With�Reverence�for�the�Word:Medieval�Scriptural�Exegesis�in�Judaism,�Christianity,�and�Islam, Oxford, 2003, p. 51-69; repr. in ID., Search, op.�cit., p. 145-164; ID., “May Karaites Eat Chicken? Indeterminacy in Sectarian Halakhic Exege-sis”, in D. STERN and N. DOHRMANN (eds), Jewish�Biblical�Interpretation�in�a�Comparative�Context, Philadelphia, 2008. Cf. ID., Search, op.�cit., p. 33-79.

123. See FRANK, Search, op.�cit. The author explicitly states at the beginning of his book (p. x): “If this story has a hero, it must be Japhet b. Eli, the first Jew to comment on the entire Bible”.

124. The tentatively edited passages are Yefetʼs commentaries on: Gen. 1:26; 16:12; 40:5, 11-12, 17-19; 41:5-7, 8, 15-16; Lev. 11:13-19; Num. 24:17; Deut. 14:11-20; 18:15, 18; 22:12; 33:4 (excerpt); 34:10; Pss. 5:1, 6-7; 31:21; 39:2; 44:1, 16-17, 18-19; 74:1, 10, 11, 23; 79:1, 8, 13; 80:1; 90:1; Isa. 7:14; 21:6-8 (excerpt); Song 1:2, 9; 2:6, 12; 5:7; 6:11.

125. See D. FRANK, “The Limits of Karaite Scripturalism, Problems in Narrative Exege-sis”, in M. M. BAR-ASHER, S. HOPKINS, S. STROUMSA and B. CHIESA (eds), A�Word�Fitly�Spoken,�Studies�in�Mediaeval�Exegesis�of�the�Hebrew�Bible,�and�the�Qurʼān, Jerusalem, 2007, p. 41-82. The tentatively edited passages are Yefetʼs commentaries on: Gen. 2:16-17; 4:3-5, 9, 22; 11:29; 15:11, 17; 22:5; 23:1; 32:15-16; 37:2; 40:14-15. For the assessment that “Karaite Judaism would never represent a pure Jewish scripturalism”, see ASTREN, Karaite�Judaism, op.�cit., p. 158.

97104.indb 12697104.indb 126 12/08/14 08:4312/08/14 08:43


Daniel Lasker also made frequent use of Yefetʼs commentaries when scrutinizing certain aspects of Karaite philosophy-theology (1989)126 and its influence on later rabbinic thought (1990, 1991).127 In addition, a number of articles by Adrian Schenker (1983, 1989)128 and Shimon Shtober (1993, 1999, 2000)129 as well as a book by Friedmann Eissler (2002)130 were devoted specifically to Yefet, his various commentaries (Torah, Daniel, Psalms [Pss. 2, 72, 89, 110, 132]), and the diverse subjects they addressed (e.g., Messianism, geography). Moreover, Adrian Schenker employed Yefet’s biblical commentary while scrutinizing different interpretations of the twenty fourth chapter of the second book of Samuel (1982).131 In addi-tion, Sarah Stroumsa made use of Yefet’s commentary, while studying dif-ferent exegetical approaches to Psalm 8:4-5 (1992), whereas Ofra Tirosh-Becker employed, inter� alia, Yefet’s texts in her comprehensive study devoted to Rabbinic Hebrew handed down in Karaite literature (1999, 2011).132 In the same decade, Hagit Mittelman used Yefet’s commentary on

126. See D. J. LASKER, “Judah Halevi and Karaism”, in J. NEUSNER, E. S. FRERICHS and N. M. SARNA (eds), From�Ancient� Israel� to�Modern�Judaism:� Intellect� in�Quest�of�Under-standing.�Essays�in�Honor�of�Marvin�Fox, 4 vols., Atlanta, 1989, vol. 3, p. 111-125.

127. See D. J. LASKER, “Maimonides’ Influence on Karaite Theories of Prophecy and Law”, Maimonidean�Studies 1 (1990), p. 99-115; ID., “The Influence of Karaism on Maimo-nides”, Sefunot 5(20) (1991), p. 145-161 (Hebrew).

128. See SCHENKER, “Der Karäer Jafet ben Eli”, art.� cit. In this article, the author announces that he is preparing (together with Joseph Alobaidi) an edition and French trans-lation of Yefet’s commentary on the first book of Psalms, to the best of my knowledge, so far unpublished. See also ID., “Die Geburtswehen der messianischen Zeit nach Japhet ben Eli”, Bulletin�d’études�karaïtes 2 (1989), p. 39-46. The article includes German translation of selected passages from Yefet’s commentaries on Daniel (Dan. 12:7) and Psalms (Pss. 73:1, 20).

129. See SHTOBER, “Geographic”, art.�cit.; ID., “Lā�Yajūz�an�Yakūn�Fī�Al-‘Ālam�Li-Llāhi�Qiblatayn: Judaeo-Islamic Polemics Concerning the Qibla (625-1010)”, Medieval�Encoun-ters:�Jewish,�Christian�and�Muslim�Culture�in�Confluence�and�Dialogue 5 (1999), p. 85-98. I am thankful to the author for bringing this article to my attention. See also ID., “The Qibla in Islam and Judaism from Polemics to Neutralization and Assimilation”, in J. BLAU and D. DORON (eds), Heritage�and� Innovation� in�Medieval�Judaeo-Arabic�Culture, Ramat Gan, 2000, p. 227-242 (Hebrew).

130. See F. EISSLER, Königspsalmem� und� karäische�Messiaserwartung:� Jefet� Ben�Elis�Auslegung�von�Ps�2,�72,�89,�110,�132� im�Vergleich�mit�Saadja�Gaons�Deutung, Tübingen, 2002.

131. See A. SCHENKER, Der�Mächtige� im�Schmelzofen�des�Mitleids.�Eine� Interpretation�von�2�Sam�24, Göttingen, 1982, p. 50-58.

132. See S. STROUMSA, “<<What is Man>>: Psalm 8:4-5 in Jewish, Christian and Mus-lim Exegesis in Arabic”, in H. J. BLUMBERG, B. BRAUDE, B. H. MEHLMAN, J. S. GURLAND and L. Y. GUTTERMAN (eds), “Open�Thou�Mine�Eyes…”:�Essays�on�Aggadah�and�Judaica�Presented� to� Rabbi�William�G.� Braude� on� his� Eightieth� Birthday� and�Dedicated� to� his�Memory, Hoboken, 1992, p. 295-302; revised and repr. in Henoch 14 (1992), p. 283-291; O. TIROSH-BECKER, Rabbinic� Hebrew� Handed� Down� in� Karaite� Literature, unpublished

97104.indb 12797104.indb 127 12/08/14 08:4312/08/14 08:43


Ecclesiastes as a comparative text for a study of Isaac Ibn-Ghiyath’s com-mentary on this book (1999)133, while Yair Zoran in his article on pluralis�majestatis analyzed the exegete’s comment on the Song of Songs 1:11 (1995).134 A few years later (2004), Zoran employed Yefet’s Bible com-mentaries as a source of reference for the study of Saadia’s Arabic transla-tion and commentary of the Hebrew words efes, ayin, tohu, and bohu.135

As for the study of Yefetʼs commentary on the Book of Genesis, it was carried out sporadically in this period, and generally not as the major focus of an entire study, but rather as part of broader research. A fine example of such an analysis is Paul Fentonʼs article about Genesis 1:26 (1993).136

In the next decade, Moshe Gil analyzed Yefet’s commentary on Exodus 16:29-30 in an attempt to establish the location of the Karaite Quarter in Jerusalem during the tenth and eleventh centuries (2001).137 Nahem Ilan studied Yefet’s translation of the word mikhtam in his article devoted to Saadia’s renderings of this Hebrew term (2005), whereas Joshua A. Berman made use of Yefet’s commentary while scrutinizing various Jewish interpre-tations of the story of Jephthah’s daughter in Judges 11:30-39.138 At about the same time, Mordechai Z. Cohen sporadically used Yefet as a source of reference for broader study of medieval rabbinic exegesis.139

Ph.D. dissertation, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1999 (Hebrew); EAD., Rabbinic�Excerpts�in�Medieval�Karaite�Literature, 2 vols., Jerusalem, 2011 (Hebrew). See also EAD., “The Use of Rabbinic Sources in Karaite Writings”, in POLLIACK (ed.), Karaite� Judaism, op.� cit., p. 319-338.

133. See H. MITTELMAN,�A�Commentary�on�Ecclesiastes�in�Judeo-Arabic�Ascribed�to�Isaac�Ibn-Ghiyath:�Philosophical�and�Exegetical�Aspects, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1999, p. 1, 21-23, 39-40, 230, 271, 304, 312, 313, 327, iii, ix, xii, xxviii, xxx (Hebrew).

134. See Y. ZORAN, “The Majestic Plural [Pluralis majestatis] – the Plural of Respect”, Beit�Mikra�Quarterly�143 (1995), p. 402-403 (Hebrew).

135. See Y. ZORAN, “Translation and Commentary of ‘Efesʼ, ‘Ayinʼ,‘Tohuʼ, and ‘Bohuʼ in Saadia’s Writings”, Shnaton� an�Annual� for�Biblical� and�Ancient�Near�Eastern� Studies 14 (2004), p. 219-239 (Hebrew).

136. See P. B. FENTON, “À l’image de Dieu: l’interprétation de Genèse I, 26 selon quelques exégètes qaraïtes du Moyen Âge”, Henoch 15 (1993), p. 271-90.

137. See M. GIL, “The Karaite Quarter in Jerusalem in the Light of their Commentary on the Sabbath Limits”, Shalem 7 (2001), p. 1-14 (4-6) (Hebrew). The article includes a tentative edition and Hebrew translation of Yefet’s commentary on Exod. 16:29-30, as well as a fac-simile of his comment on Num. 35.

138. See N. ILAN, “Saadiah Gaon’s Translation of ‘Mikhtamʼ”, Journal�of�Jewish�Studies 56 (2005), p. 298-305 (300-301); J. A. BERMAN, “Medieval Monasticism and the Evolution of Jewish Interpretation of the Story of Jephthah’s Daughter”, Jewish�Quarterly�Review 95 (2005), p. 228-256.

139. See, e.g., M. Z. COHEN, Three�Approaches�to�Biblical�Metaphor:�from�Abraham�Ibn�Ezra�and�Maimonides�to�David�Kimhi, Leiden, 2003 (75-76, 264 and n. 112 there).

97104.indb 12897104.indb 128 12/08/14 08:4312/08/14 08:43


This ever growing interest in Yefet and his exegetical achievements also resulted in a new wave of editions. Sarah Stroumsa together with Sagit Butbul edited and translated into Hebrew his commentary on Genesis 1:1-5 (2000).140 Butbul also edited and translated into Hebrew Yefetʼs entire com-mentary on the Scroll of Ruth as part of her master’s thesis (2002), one year later published as an article (2003).141 Ofer Livne-Kafri published his mas-ter’s thesis (1978) containing a critical edition and Hebrew translation of a fragment of the exegete’s commentary on Habakkuk (Hab. 1, 3) (1993)142, Joseph Alobaidi included a portion from Yefetʼs commentary on Isaiah (Isa. 52:13-53:12) in his book (1998)143, and Tzvi Avni edited and translated into Hebrew the exegeteʼs interpretation of Balaamʼs poetic verses (Num. 23:6-24:24) as part of his master’s thesis (2000), subsequently published as an article (2003).144 At about the same time, Yitzhak Avishur edited a reworked version of Yefet’s translation of Isaiah and Jeremiah (1998), as well as Ezechiel (reviewed by Eliezer Schlossberg)145, whereas Yoseif Yaron pub-lished a new English translation of Yefet’s commentaries on Daniel and Nahum (2000).146 Moreover, Maciej Tomal edited all of Yefetʼs commentary on the Book of Amos in his Ph.D. dissertation (2000), so far unpublished. He also wrote an article in Polish on Yefetʼs anti-Rabbanite polemics as expressed in the exegeteʼs commentary on this book of the Bible (2000) and an article on the grammar of Judeo-Arabic language employed by Yefet in this commentary (2000).147 Later on, David Sklare used Yefet’s commentary

140. See S. BUTBUL and S. STROUMSA, “Yefet ben ʻEli al-Basri, Commentary on Genesis – Model Critical Edition with Hebrew Translation: Commentary on Genesis 1:1-5”, in BEN-SHAMMAI�et�al.�(eds), Manuscripts, op.�cit., p. 79-179 (Hebrew).

141. See S. BUTBUL, “The Commentary of Yefet ben ʻEli the Karaite on the Book of Ruth”, Sefunot�8(23) (2003), p. 459-571 (Hebrew).

142. See O. LIVNE-KAFRI, “The Commentary on Habakkuk 1-3 by the Karaite Yefet ben ʻEli al-Basri”, Sefunot�6 (21) (1993), p. 73-113 (Hebrew).

143. See J. ALOBAIDI (ed.), The�Messiah�in�Isaiah�53:�The�Commentaries�of�Saadia�Gaon,�Salmon�ben�Yeruham�and�Yefet�ben�Eli�on�Is�52:13-53:12;�Edition�and�Translation, Bern, 1998.

144. See T. AVNI, “Balaam’s Poetic Verses in the Commentary of Yefet ben ʻEli the Karaite”, Sefunot�8(23) (2003), p. 370-457 (Hebrew).

145. See Y. AVISHUR, A�Medieval�Translation�of�the�Latter�Prophets�into�Iraqi�and�Syrian�Judaeo-Arabic.�Book�1.�Isaiah�and�Jeremiah.�The�Text�of�Bodleian�Manuscript�Hunt.�206�with�Introduction�and�Notes, Jerusalem, 1998 (Hebrew); ID., A�Medieval�Translation�of�the�Latter�Prophets�into�Iraqi�and�Syrian�Judaeo-Arabic.�Ezekiel�and�the�Minor�Prophets.�The�Text�of�Bodleian�Manuscript�Hunt.�206�with�Introduction�and�Notes,�Tel Aviv-Jaffa, 2000 (Hebrew). For its attribution to Yefet see E. SCHLOSSBERG, “A Medieval Judaeo-Arabic Translation of the Latter Prophets”, Peʻamim 83 (2000), p. 147-158 (Hebrew).

146. See YARON (ed.), Angels, op.�cit.147. See M. TOMAL, The�Judaeo-Arabic�Commentary�of�Yefet�ben�ʻAli�the�Karaite�on�the�

Book�of�Amos:�Critical�Edition�and�Commentary, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,�University

97104.indb 12997104.indb 129 12/08/14 08:4312/08/14 08:43


on Leviticus 15:31 as a source text for his broader comparative exegetical study of medieval Jewish discussions of the universality of the Torah (2005).148 In addition, Meirav Nadler-Akirav, completed her doctoral dissertation on Yefet’s commentary on Amos 1-4 at Bar-Ilan University (2009), and is now working (together with Eliezer Schlossberg) on a critical edition of this work.149

Recently, Michael Wechsler devoted two articles to the fragment of Yefetʼs translation and commentary on the Book of Proverbs (Prov. 31:1-9; 10-31). Both articles include a critical edition and English translation of the selected portions of this commentary (2002, 2003).150 As part of his doctoral research project, he edited and translated into English Yefetʼs commentary on the Scroll of Esther (2006). This work has been significantly expanded into a book (2008), whose extensive introduction presents a most interesting analysis of the diversity of Yefetʼs exegetical sources and the philosophies

of Warsaw, 2000 (Polish). This study contains an edition in Hebrew script based on a unique Ms. (Bodl. Nb. 2483, of Yefetʼs Arabic translation and commentary on the book of Amos (p. 1-99). The dissertation opens with a general introduction that contains information about Yefet and the edited Ms. (p. v-vii), as well as the commentary and its language (p. vii-xi). It also offers a brief overview of the state of the arts and the editorial policy that was followed (p. xi-xvi). The edition is followed by a linguistic study of the Judaeo-Arabic language employed by Yefet (p. 100-180) and bibliography (p. 181-187). See also ID., “From the His-tory of Karaite Anti-rabbinic Polemics in the Tenth Century”, Studia� Judaica�2(6) (2000), p. 161-168 (Polish); ID., “Some Remarks on Judeo-Arabic Grammar on the Basis of a Karaite Manuscript”, Sprawozdania�z�Posiedzeń�Komisji�Naukowych 44/1 (2000), p. 46-49 (Polish).

148. See D. SKLARE, “Are the Gentiles Obligated to Observe the Torah?: the Discussion Concerning the Universality of the Torah in the East in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries”, in J. M. HARRIS (ed.), Beerot�Yizhak:�Studies� in�Memory�of� Isadore�Twersky, Cambridge-London, 2005, p. 311-346 (331, 333, 335).

149. See M. NADLER-AKIRAV, The�Arabic�Commentary�of�Yefet�Ben� ’Ali� the�Karaite�on�the�Book�of�Amos:�A�Critical�Edition�to�ch.�1-4,�Introduction�and�Notes, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,�Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2009 (Hebrew). This study consists of an exten-sive introduction followed by a critical edition of Yefetʼs Arabic translation and commentary on Amos 1-4 (p. 185-238). The introduction, preceded by a Hebrew summary and a preface that contains information about Yefet and his works (p. 1-4), is divided into six chapters that deal with: Yefet’s approach to Bible interpretation, its literal-contextual, historical and theo-logical aspects, as well as inner biblical exegesis (p. 5-57); Yefet’s exegesis of Amos, and his literary, structural, and redactional analysis of the Holy Text (p. 58-97); Yefet’s Karaite and Rabbinic sources and his influence on later exegetes of Scripture (p. 98-149); Yefet’s transla-tion technique, as well as the relationship between translation and interpretation (p. 150-172); summarizing conclusions (p. 173-178); description of the manuscripts employed in the edition and the editorial policy that was followed (p. 179-184). The dissertation ends with a bibliog-raphy (p. 239-303) and en English summary of the whole study (p. 304ff.).

150. See M. G. WECHSLER, “The Arabic Translation and Commentary of Yefet ben ‘Eli on Proverbs 31:1-9”, Revue�des�études�juives 161(3-4) (2002), p. 393-409; ID., “The Arabic Translation and Commentary of Yefet ben ‘Eli on Proverbs 31:10-31”, Journal� of� Jewish�Studies 54/2 (2003), p. 283-310.

97104.indb 13097104.indb 130 12/08/14 08:4312/08/14 08:43


that influenced him (inter�alia, that of the muʻtazilites), as well as the tech-niques he employed in his translation and commentary on the Book of Esther.151 Wechsler has also written a thorough survey article about Yefet, his life and works for the Encyclopedia�of�Jews�in�the�Islamic�World�(2010).152 Last but not least, he is currently co-editing, together with Meira Polliack, an important publication series entitled “Karaite Texts and Studies” (Brill). Among other things, in this series have appeared so far the first comprehen-sive bibliography on Karaites and Karaism (Bibliographia�Karaitica), includ-ing a survey of the scholarly study of Yefet.153

In this period as well, more dissertations were devoted specifically to Yefet. Fiona Blumfield’s Ph.D. thesis dealt with the translation and exegeti-cal techniques employed by Yefet in his commentary on the Book of Ruth (2001); she also wrote an article about the identity of the redeemer in this scroll (2001).154 Miriam Goldstein authored several important articles fol-lowed by a doctoral dissertation in which she scrutinized some of Yefet’s exegetical methods either independently, or as a relevant point of reference for the study of other Karaite exegetes (2001, 2003, 2006, 2010). Her illu-minating dissertation was adapted into a book (2011).155

More recently, Jessica Andruss translated and studied Yefet’s commentary on Jonah as part of her master’s thesis (2007).156 In addition,

151. See WECHSLER, The�Arabic�Translation, op.�cit.152. See WECHSLER, “Japheth”, art.�cit.153. See WALFISH and KIZILOV, Bibliographia, op.�cit., p. 79, 400-409.154. See BLUMFIELD, The�Commentary�of�Yefet�ben�ʻEli, op.�cit. This work consists of five

chapters presenting a study of Yefetʼs translation and commentary on Ruth 1-4. It includes an analysis of: Yefetʼs translation techniques (p. 36-94); his hermeneutics (p. 95-188); a com-parison between his commentary and other contemporary Karaite sources (p. 189-216); a comparison between Yefetʼs translation techniques and the Tafsīr of Saadia (p. 217-271); and Yefetʼs use of rabbinic sources (p. 272-320). The work also contains an introduction that provides information about Yefet and other Karaite scholars of Jerusalem, and the develop-ment of Karaite Bible exegesis, as well as a description of manuscript sources (p. 6-35).It ends with a general conclusion (p. 321-28). See also EAD., “Yefet ben ʻEli on the Identity of the Redeemer in his Commentary on the Book of Ruth”, in KHAN�(ed.), Exegesis, op.�cit., p. 65-75.

155. See M. GOLDSTEIN, “The Beginnings of the Transition from Derash to Peshat as Exemplified in Yefet ben ʻEli’s Comment on Psa. 44:24”, in KHAN�(ed.), Exegesis, op.�cit., p. 41-64; EAD., “The Structural Function of Biblical Superfluity in the Exegesis of the Karaite Yusuf ibn Nuh”, Sefunot�8(23) (2003), p. 349-370 (Hebrew); EAD., “ʽArabic Composition 101ʼ and the Early Development of Judaeo-Arabic Bible Exegesis”, Journal�of�Semitic�Studies 55/2 (2010), p. 451-478; EAD., Karaite Exegesis, op.�cit.

156. See J. H. ANDRUSS, The�Judaeo-Arabic�Commentary�on�Jonah�by�the�Karaite�Japheth�ben�Eli:�Introduction�and�Translation, unpublished M.A. thesis, Ohio State University, 2007. I am grateful to the author for having sent me a copy of her work. The thesis consists of two chapters entitled “Introduction” (p. 1-30), and “Translation” (p. 31-77). The first chapter is

97104.indb 13197104.indb 131 12/08/14 08:4312/08/14 08:43


Joshua A. Sabih edited Yefetʼs translation of Jeremiah (2009)157, whereas Ilana Sasson completed her doctoral dissertation on his commentary on Proverbs (2010), presenting a most interesting study of diverse aspects of Yefet’s hermeneutics, including his theological notions and polemical over-tones present in his commentary on this book. She also authored articles on gender equality in Yefetʼs commentary on this Book and in Karaite halakhah (2013), on differences between Saadia and Yefet in their respective approaches to the Book of Proverbs (2013) and on Masorah and Grammar as Revealed in Tenth Century Karaite Exegesis.158 Moreover, Sasson wrote a number of entries to the forthcoming Encyclopaedia�of�the�Textual�History�of�the�Bible in which she discussed Yefet’s translations of selected biblical books.159 At about the same time, Joseph Alobaidi published an edition and English translation of Yefetʼs commentary on the Song of Songs (2010)160, whereas Yair Zoran prepared a new edition with Hebrew translation of Yefet’s commentary on Obadiah (2012).161 In addition, Karina Shalem edited, translated into Hebrew and subjected to literary analysis Yefetʼs commentary on the stories of Jacob in Aram as part of her master’s thesis

divided into six subsections that deal with: 1. The book of Jonah and its exegesis (p. 1-6); 2. Japheth ben ʻEli’s reading of Jonah in terms of his exegetical techniques, including his sustained reading, and his theory of prophecy (p. 6-16); 3. The Rabbinic background of Japheth’s commentary (p. 16-21); 4. Japheth’s commentary in the Karaite tradition (p. 21-24); 5. The Islamic background of Japheth’s commentary in respect of the problem of prophetic infallibility (p. 24-28); 6. Presentation of the present translation (p. 29-30). The thesis opens with an abstract (p. ii), and acknowledgments (p. iii), and ends with bibliography (p. 78-84).

157. See SABIH, Japhet�ben�Ali’s�Book�of�Jeremiah, op.�cit.158. See SASSON, Methods�and�Approach, op.�cit. This inspiring dissertation, which is now

being adapted into a book, is divided into five chapters: 1. Introduction (p. 16-82); 2. Style and Presentation (p. 83-159); 3. Hermeneutics (p. 160-250); 4. Theology and Polemics (p. 251-325); 5. Conclusions (p. 326-333). It also includes four appendices containing edited extracts of Yefet’s commentary on Proverbs: his translation of Prov. 23; his prologue to the commentary on Proverbs; his commentary on Prov. 1:1-7; and Prov. 30:1-6 (p. 334-358).I am grateful to the author for having sent me a copy of her work. See EAD., “Gender Equality in Yefet ben Eli’s Commentary and Karaite Halakha”, AJS�Review 37/1 (2013), p. 51-74; EAD., “The Book of Proverbs between Saadia and Yefet”, Intellectual�History�of�the�Islami-cate�World�1 (2013), p. 159-178; EAD., “Masorah and Grammar as Revealed in Tenth Century Karaite Exegesis”, Jewish Studies.� An� Internet� Journal,� forthcoming; EAD., “This Matter Applies Not Only to Men”: Gender Equality in Yefet ben Eliʼs Biblical Commentary and in the Karaite Legal System”, in HUSSEIN and OETTINGER (eds),�Beyn�‘Ebher�la-‘Arabh, op.�cit., p. 71-96 (Hebrew).

159. See subsections 10.3.8, 11.3.8, 12.3.8, 13-17.1.8 (Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Five Scrolls), in A. LANGE�et�al. (eds),�The�Textual�History�of�the�Bible, 2 vols., Leiden, forthcoming, vol. 1. See also I. SASSON, “Arabic”, in Encyclopaedia�Judaica, 2nd ed., op.�cit., vol. 3, p. 603-606.

160. See J. ALOBAIDI, Old�Jewish�Commentaries�on�the�Song�of�Songs I�(Bible�in�History).�The�Commentary�of�Yefet�ben�Eli, Bern - New York, 2010.

161. See Y. ZORAN, “The Commentary of the Karaite Japheth ben Eli on the Book of Obadiah: An Annotated Scientific Edition”, Ginzei�Qedem 8 (2012), p. 129-231 (Hebrew).

97104.indb 13297104.indb 132 12/08/14 08:4312/08/14 08:43


(2012) (Gen. 29:1-32:3).162 Now, after devoting a number of years to the study of Yefet as part of my Ph.D. and postdoctoral research projects (2007, 2008, 2009, 2012)163, my book on his exegesis of the Book of Genesis, with special attention to the Abraham cycle, was published in the “Karaite Texts and Studies” series (2012).164 Most recently, I also wrote articles on the use of Islamic exegetical terms in Yefet’s Bible commentaries (2013) and on interpretative alterations of Scripture in medieval Karaite Bible translations as a whole and in Yefet’s renderings in particular (2013).165

162. See K. SHALEM, A�Literary�Reading�of�the�Bible�in�Jewish�Medieval�Culture, unpub-lished M.A. thesis, Tel Aviv University, 2012 (Hebrew). This work consists of a general introduction (p. 3-13), a chapter that deals with Yefet’s literary approach to the stories of Jacob in Aram (p. 13-53), an overview of Yefet’s Karaite and Rabbinic sources and his influ-ence on later exegetes of Scripture (p. 53-63), a critical edition and Hebrew translation of Gen. 29:1-32:3 (p. 64-155), an appendix (p. 156-161), and bibliography (p. 162-167). The thesis ends with an English abstract (p. 1*-3*).

163. See M. ZAWANOWSKA, Yefet�Ben�‘Eli�and�his�Commentary�on�Selected�Chapters�of�the�Abraham’s�Cycle.�An� Introduction,�Critical�Edition,�English�Translation� and�Analysisof� the�10th�Century�Karaite�Commentary�on� the�Book�of�Genesis� in�Judaeo-Arabic, unpub-lished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Warsaw, 2007; EAD., “The Literary Approach to the Bible and its Characters – Yefet ben ʻEli and his Commentary on the Book of Genesis: an Example of Competing Females in the Story of Abraham”, in B. J. SCHWARTZ, A. MELAMED and A. SHEMESH (eds), Iggud�–�Selected�Essays�in�Jewish�Studies, 3 vols., Jerusalem, 2008, vol. 1, p. 69-84; EAD., “Dialectical Perception of Scripture among Medieval Karaite Exegetes and its Hermeneutic Consequences as Exemplified in Yefet ben ʻEli’s Commentary on the Book of Genesis”, Volume�IV�of�a�Supplement�to�Studia�Judaica, Cracow, 2008, p. 91-107 (Polish); EAD., “A-mystical Messianism Among the Early Karaites. A Rational Approach to Biblical Exegesis”, Jewish�History�Quarterly 2/230 (2009), p. 141-161 (Polish); EAD., “Yefet Ben ‘Elī the Karaite and his Arabic Commentary on Genesis 12:1-7”, Jewish�History�Quar-terly 4/244 (2012), p. 530-566.

164. See ZAWANOWSKA, The�Arabic�Translation, op.�cit. For papers that roughly summa-rize selected chapters of this book, see EAD., “The Concept of the Exegete, his Role, Guidelines and Aims in Biblical Interpretation According to Yefet ben ʻEli”, Online�Proceedings�of�the�Fif-teenth�World�Congress�of�Jewish�Studies�(Jerusalem,�2-6�August�2009),�http://jewish-studies.org/ShowDoc.asp?MenuID=49,�2010; EAD., “The Limits of Literalism: Yefet’s Approach to Bible Translation”, Commentaria, Leiden, forthcoming; EAD., “Was Moses the Mudawwin of the Torah? The Question of Authorship of the Pentateuch According to Yefet ben ‘Eli”, Proceed-ings�of� the�Fourteenth�Conference�of� the�Society� for�Judaeo-Arabic�Studies�(Tel Aviv Uni-versity, Tel Aviv, 9-13 August 2009), forthcoming.

165. See M. ZAWANOWSKA, “Islamic Exegetical Terms in Yefet ben ‘Eli’s Commentaries on the Holy Scriptures”, Journal� of� Jewish� Studies 64 (2013), p. 306-325; EAD., “In the Border-land of Literalism: Interpretative Alterations of Scripture in Medieval Karaite Transla-tions of the Bible into Arabic”, Intellectual�History�of�the�Islamicate�World�1 (2013), p. 179-202. See also POLLIACK and ZAWANOWSKA, “God Would not Give”, art.�cit.; M. ZAWANOWSKA, “Religion in an Age of Reason: Reading Divine Attributes into the Scriptural Text in Medi-eval Karaite Bible Translations”, forthcoming; EAD., “The Bible Read Through the Prism of Theology: Spiritual Anthropomorphism of the Early Karaites”, forthcoming; EAD., “Where the Plain Meaning is Obscure or Unacceptable…: The Elimination of Implicit Anthropomor-phism in Medieval Karaite Translations of the Biblical Verses into Arabic”, forthcoming.

97104.indb 13397104.indb 133 12/08/14 08:4312/08/14 08:43


Currently, Kees de Vreugd is preparing an edition of Yefetʼs commen-tary on Zechariah, Ilana Sasson is editing his commentary on Proverbs166, and Arik Sadan is working on his commentary on Hiob. In addition, James T. Robinson is editing Yefet’s commentaries on the Books of Ecclesiastes and Joshua. All these editions are to be published in the aforementioned “Karaite Texts and Studies series.167 Besides, Boris Rashkovsky is studying Yefet’s view on the Khazars, Nehamit Peri is working on her Ph.D. disserta-tion in which she employs Yefet’s commentary on Hiob as a comparative source for the study of Jewish approaches to this biblical book, whereas Nabih Bashir is extensively using Yefet’s Bible commentaries while prepar-ing a paper on three medieval traditions to understand the ambiguous Hebrew name of God El�Shaddai.

Finally, the bibliographical articles by Giuliano Tamani are still of impor-tance; they provide a list of Yefetʼs commentaries extent in Western Euro-pean libraries (1983, 1989), excluding the Firkovitch collections.168 Never-theless, much of the manuscript materials from the Firkovitch collections (relating inter�alios to Yefet) have been updated in the comprehensive elec-tronic catalogue “ALEPH” of the Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manu-scripts at the National Library of Israel (formerly called the Jewish National and University Library) in Jerusalem.169 Last but not least, an important sample catalog of Yefetʼs commentaries on Genesis in the Firkovitch Col-lection was compiled by David Sklare and Efrat Batat (2000).170

166. See K. DE VREUGD (ed. and trans.), The�Commentary�on� the�Book�of�Zechariah�by�Yefet�ben�ʻEli�the�Karaite [working title]. I am thankful to the author for having provided me with this edition prior to its publication.

167. See J. T. ROBINSON, Establishing� the�Way�of�Peshat:�The�Arabic�Translation�and�Commentary�of�Yefet�b.�ʻEli�on�Qohelet�(Ecclesiastes) [provisional title], Leiden, forthcoming; ID., The�Arabic�Translation�and�Commentary�of�Yefet� b.� ʻEli� on� Joshua [provisional title], Leiden, forthcoming [both books are expected in 2014]. The book will include the complete edition of Yefet’s commentary on Ecclesiastes based on all known surviving manuscript wit-nesses, including twenty fragments which have never before been identified. It will also include a complete annotated English translation of the edited text and an introduction. I am thankful to the author for having provided me with this information.

168. See TAMANI, “La tradizione”, art.� cit.; ID., “Prolegomeni a un’ edizione dei com-menti biblici di Yefet b. Ali”, Bulletin�d’études�karaïtes 2 (1989), p. 23-28.

169. See http://aleph.nli.org.il/F?RN=607022582.170. See D. SKLARE and E. BATAT, “Catalogue of Manuscripts. Index of Catalogued Manu-

scripts”, in BEN-SHAMMAI�et�al.�(eds), Manuscripts, op.�cit., p. 16-77 (Hebrew).

97104.indb 13497104.indb 134 12/08/14 08:4312/08/14 08:43


5. Conclusions

Notwithstanding the fact that for a long time Yefet ha-Levī Ben ‘Eli remained forgotten, he is overall by far the most studied medieval interpreter of Scripture of the Golden Age of Karaite exegesis. Nevertheless, many of the scholarly works devoted to him and his oeuvre are prepared as part of bachelor’s, mas-ter’s or Ph.D. research projects and unfortunately remain unpublished.

Over time, together with gradually growing interest in Yefet we witness a change in the scholars’ approach to him and appraisal of his achievements. It shifted from very biased opinions (typical of the studies conducted in the second half of the nineteenth century and at the beginning of the twentieth century) towards much more positive evaluation of Yefet’s oeuvre carried out in the second half of the twentieth century. Nota�bene, this positive re-evaluation of Yefet’s work in modern scholarship seems sometimes to be immoderate, as emerges, for example, from Birnbaum’s somewhat exagger-ated statement to the effect that

one is almost tempted to believe that there would be little left of Ibn Ezra and Kimhi if we were to discard from their respective Bible commentaries what was earlier uttered by their eminent forerunner, the now relatively obscure and forgotten Yefet.171

Subjects�of�research:�studies�of�different�biblical�books

Despite the growing interest in Yefet and his exegetical enterprise as a whole, all of his works have not been given the same amount of attention. In general, editions and studies devoted to his commentaries on shorter nar-rative texts (such as Ruth or Esther), and what the Christian Bible refers to as “wisdom books” (Proverbs, the Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes, for example) outweigh those that analyze his interpretations of longer books of the Bible pertaining to these genres (like Pentateuch, Psalms or Job), which are more rare. In other words, the longer the text, the less likely that it has been edited and thoroughly examined.172

171. See BIRNBAUM, “Yefet”, art.�cit., p. 65; ID., The�Arabic�Commentary, op.�cit., p. v. Cf. MARWICK, “Review”, op.�cit. See also LEHRMAN, A�Commentary, op.�cit., p. 6. On Yefet’s popularity in Spain, see ANKORI, Karaites, op.�cit., p. 346, n. 125 and p. 359, n. 9. On Yefet’s influence on Abraham Ibn Ezra, see further bibliography in ZAWANOWSKA, The�Arabic�Trans-lation, op.�cit., p. 6, n. 11.

172. For example, Yefet’s vast commentary on the Pentateuch (including the Book of Genesis, which has been of particular interest to me) is still not well attended. Outside of short fragments tentatively published in various articles, only miniscule parts of this large composi-tion have been critically edited up to now. Similarly, only few (though very important, like

97104.indb 13597104.indb 135 12/08/14 08:4312/08/14 08:43


This same “quantitative rule” applies to Yefet’s commentaries on the Prophets as well. Whereas those dealing with the Minor Prophets appear to be very popular with scholars (e.g., his commentaries on Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah and possibly also Jonah were edited — either in their entirety or in part — as many as four times), his interpretations of the Major Prophets (especially Isaiah and Ezekiel) have hardly been given serious attention.173

Studies focusing on the exegete’s interpretations of legislative portions of Scripture (such as those in Leviticus or Numbers) are even more rare (the comprehensive studies by Yoram Erder, in which he employs Yefet as an important source of reference, are but an exception), while nothing, or almost nothing, has been written or published about his commentaries on most of the scriptural texts that the Christians call “historical books” (i.e., Joshua, Judges, 1-2 Samuel; 1-2 Kings; 1-2 Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah).174 Therefore, even the most rudimentary research on Yefet’s interpretations of these books is a major desideratum.

Foci�of�research:�studies�of�different�aspects�of�Yefet’s�works

A relatively large number of scholars, especially in recent years, have focused on certain aspects of Yefet’s biblical commentaries, conducting in-depth examinations of the exegete’s rationalistic, literal-contextual approach

those of Meira Polliack) attempts have been made to analyze it, even selectively, and even more so, to focus on this large composition as the main subject of an entire study. (I am obvi-ously generalizing, since the Book of Genesis is much more attended than other books of the Pentateuch).

173. An exception to this “quantitative rule” governing especially the editing process is the second volume of as yet unpublished doctoral dissertation of Haggai Ben-Shammai, in which the author included a considerable number of critically edited passages from Yefet’s commentaries on many different books of the Bible, irrespective of their length. See BEN-SHAMMAI, Doctrines, op.�cit.

174. An exception to this general tendency are unpublished papers by Yoram Erder and Simon Shtober, in which the authors base their arguments on Yefet’s commentary on Samuel. See Y. ERDER, “Interpretation of Biblical Stories (Qisas): The Case of King David’s Census as Interpreted by Yefet ben Eli”, unpublished paper, presented at the workshop entitled “Karaite Studies – The State of the Field” (Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, 27 February-1 March 2012); S. SHTOBER, “The Light of the Messiah in the Commentaries by Yefet Ben ‘Eli and Rabbi Isaac Ben Shmuel ha-Sfaradi”, unpublished paper, presented at the 14th International Conference of the Society for Judaeo-Arabic Studies (Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, 9-13 August 2009) (Hebrew). See also a recently published article by Yoram Erder, in which the author thoroughly analyzes, inter�alios,�Yefetʼs commentary on 2 Sam. 21:1-14. See ERDER, “Impaling”, art.� cit. Cf. also BEN-SHAMMAI, “Review”, art.� cit.; ID., “The Commentary of Yefet ben ‘Eli the Karaite on Samuel I-II”, art.�cit. Recently, I was informed that Yair Zoran had started to work on Yefet’s commentaries on Chronicles, Ezra and Nehe-mia whereas James T. Robinson had prepared preliminary editions of Yefet’s commentaries on I and II Samuel, I Kings, Isaiah and Psalms.

97104.indb 13697104.indb 136 12/08/14 08:4312/08/14 08:43


(which predominates most of his exegetical compositions), while paying special attention to his innovative historical, redactional, and literary insights, as well as his translation technique (e.g., studies by Polliack, Wechsler, Goldstein, as well as myself, and as yet unpublished dissertations by Blumfield, Adler-Akirav, and Sasson). This thriving area of research contrasts sharply with a rather modest number of studies devoted to Yefet’s non-literal, allegorical interpretations, as well as his messianic concepts of the approaching end of history (‘et� ha-qeṣ), and the war of Gog and Magog.175

An apt example of the general tendency discernible in the study of Yefet’s non-literal interpretations of Scripture emerges from a scrutiny of the schol-arly attention devoted to his commentary on the Song of Songs. It was edited (by Jung in part, and subsequently by Bargès in its entirety) and translated into English (by Alobaidi and partially by Joel Ryce-Menuhin), yet only selectively analyzed in greater depth, this by other scholars (Wieder, Frank and also, though in a more limited way Erder, Salfeld and Zoran). Similarly, Yefet’s translation and commentary on Jeremiah was the subject of three separate studies (by Wendkos, Avishur and Sabih). All of them included critical editions of selected portions of this text, but neither ofthem focused on Yefet’s allegorical interpretations, or the messianic visions present in this biblical book.176

To conclude, we are in the fortunate position of having most of Yefet’s compositions identified and at our disposal, preserved, discovered, or recov-ered from Russian libraries after the fall of the Iron Curtain.177 Furthermore, most of us have relatively easy access to these abundant sources, available on microfilm in the National Library of Israel in Jerusalem.178 Probably

175. Save for the book by Eissler, probably the most substantial analysis of these issues was made over a half century ago by Naphtali Wieder in his landmark publication on the Judean Scrolls and Karaism and, more recently, by Yoram Erder, although Yefet is far from being the main hero of these studies. See EISSLER, Königspsalmem, op.� cit.;�ERDER, “The Desert”, art.�cit.; WIEDER, The�Judean�Scrolls, op.�cit. (2005). He is, however, in the forefront of a more recent illuminating research of these and related subjects conducted by Daniel Frank. See FRANK, Search, op.�cit. Cf. also SCHENKER, “Die Geburtswehen”, art.�cit.; VAJDA, “The Opinions”, art.�cit.

176. Currently, Kees de Vreugd, who is preparing an edition of Yefet’s commentary on Zechariah, intends to respond to this desideratum by devoting the analytical part of his study to the exegete’s concepts of the Messiah and the war expected at the end of days. See VREUGD, The�Commentary�on�the�Book�of�Zechariah, op.�cit.

177. On the exception of Yefet’s translation and interpretation of Lamentations, which has still not been found or identified, see above, n. 3.

178. On the plethora of Mss. containing Yefet’s compositions, available in the National Library of Israel, see above, n. 3.

97104.indb 13797104.indb 137 12/08/14 08:4312/08/14 08:43


thanks (at least in part) to the ever increasing availability of Yefet’s works, in recent years there has been a growing interest in this exceptional exegete — one of the most prolific interpreters of the Bible who ever lived — and his almost unparalleled achievements. Taking into account not only the diversity, richness, and sheer size of the materials he left behind, but also the comprehensiveness and compendium-like nature of his commentaries, as well as the genuineness and originality of his own ideas, we can only hope that one day Yefet will deservedly become a separate discipline of study, as Saadia Gaon and Maimonides did.

Marzena [email protected]

97104.indb 13897104.indb 138 12/08/14 08:4312/08/14 08:43

review of scholarly research on yefet ben ʻeli and his works

Documents