Joseph Kara

Joseph ben Simeon Kara (c. 1065 – c. 1135) (Hebrew: יוסף בן שמעון קרא) was a French Bible exegete who was born and lived in Troyes. His uncle and teacher was Menahem ben Ḥelbo, whom Ḳara often cites in his commentaries, these quotations being almost the only source of knowledge concerning Menahem's exegesis.

Ḳara frequented Rashi's house; it is even possible that he was Rashi's pupil,[1] though this is denied by A. Epstein. At least they quote each other.[2]

Social milieu

In Rashi's house Ḳara also made the acquaintance of Samuel ben Meïr.[3] They likewise quote each other.[4] Isaac Ḳara, of whose exegesis specimens are given in Monatsschrift, 1864, p. 219; 1865, p. 384,[5] may be a son of Joseph.

The surname "Ḳara" is usually taken to be a professional name, meaning "reader" or "interpreter of the Bible".[6] Adolf Jellinek points out, however,[7] that "Ḳara," as contrasted with "Darshan," means the representative of the "Peshaṭ" ("Pashṭan").

Works

Ḳara was a prolific exegetical writer. When he copied Rashi's commentary on the Pentateuch he added numerous glosses and remarks in order to supplement and revise it; and these glosses were inserted by the scribes in the text of Rashi. They have been collected.[8]

The original or independent Bible commentaries of Ḳara are:

It is quite possible that Ḳara wrote also commentaries on Ezra and Nehemiah, but that the commentaries on these books as contained in MS. Saraval No. 27, and ascribed to Joseph Ḳara, are not genuine (A. Geiger, in Oẓar Neḥmad, iv.43 et seq.). Some comments of Ḳara on Chronicles must have existed, as is proved by the quotations in pseudo-Rashi to those books (see II Chron. iii.15, v.9, xxv.24). According to Epstein (l.c. i.29 et seq.), Ḳara wrote additionally

Characteristics

While in his glosses on the Pentateuch and in his commentaries on the Prophets Ḳara depends upon Rashi to the greatest extent, his explanations of the Hagiographa are more original. He quotes Menahem ben Saruḳ, Dunash ibn Labraṭ, Judah and Moses ha-Darshan, Ḳalir, Meïr Sheliaḥ Ẓibbur, Kalonymus, and others. In his commentary on Book of Job he frequently uses the writings of Shabbethai Donnolo, and gives very valuable extracts from the lost Baraita of Samuel with Donnolo's commentary (comp. Epstein, l.c. pp. 34 et seq.).

His grammatical standpoint is that of Rashi. Whole Hebrew sentences are sometimes translated into French. In his expressions he is not as terse as Rashi. He is bold enough to express the opinion that the Book of Samuel was not written by the prophet himself, but later (Commentary on I Sam. ix.9). He does not go into grammatical or philological research, and cares more for the sense of the whole sentence than for a single word. He shows more common sense than depth, and though he does not altogether hold aloof from haggadic interpretations, he takes a leading place among the exegetes of northern France, who in general preferred the rational exegesis.

Jewish Encyclopedia bibliography

Notes

  1. ↑ Zunz, Z.G. p. 68.
  2. ↑ comp. Joseph Ḳara on Prov. iv.4, v.14, vi.23, xviii.22; Rashi on Judges iii.26; Num. xvii.5, xxiv.14; Isa. x.24).
  3. ↑ Compare RaSHBaM on Gen. xxxvii.13.
  4. ↑ Compare RaSHBaM on Gen. xxiv.60 and Num. iv.10; Rosin, R. Samuel ben Meïr, pp. 12 et seq., 72 et seq.; Joseph Ḳara on Amos iii.12; Job xi.17; Gen. x.15; Porges, in Monatsschrift, 1883, p. 169.
  5. ↑ Compare Rosin, l.c. pp. 24 et seq.
  6. ↑ See Jew. Encyc. iii.168, s.v. Bible Exegesis
  7. ↑ Commentarien zu Esther, Ruth, etc., p. vi, Leipzig, 1855.
  8. ↑ By A. Geiger in Niṭ'e Na'amanim, i.1 et seq.; idem in Parschandatha, pp. 21 et seq.; and by Abraham Berliner in Pletath Soferim (Hebr. part), p. 12.

References

This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.