Allegorical Commentaries on Songs

In the view of Ephraim E. Urbach, historical allegory represents just one of three main approaches in the interpretation of Songs that were prevalent during the talmudic period: the others were mystical interpretations and martyrological homilies. Each of these approaches proposed a commentary on the entire text in accordance with its exegetical orientation, but later on the latter two approaches were rejected in favor of the first.Footnote ⁴ The historical allegorical midrash interpreted the verses of Songs as referring to ancient historical periods: the splitting of the Reed Sea, the revelation at Mount Sinai, the Tent of Meeting, and Solomon's Temple.Footnote ⁵ Each verse is interpreted independently, with no consideration of context, nor any indication of chronological development in the text.Footnote ⁶

The Aramaic translation (Targum) is the earliest example of Jewish exegesis offering a systematic allegorical interpretation, addressing the verses of Songs as part of a textual whole, with the plot developing from the Exodus from Egypt up until the future redemption.Footnote ⁷ According to the Targum, the text begins with a description of the Exodus, and continues with the revelation at Sinai, the sin of the golden calf, the establishment of the Sanctuary, wandering in the wilderness, and the entry into the Promised Land under the leadership of Joshua (1:3–3:6). It then moves on to a description of the First Temple Period (3:7–5:1), the Babylonian exile and the Second Temple (5:2–7:11), and concludes with a description of the Edomite exile (Rome) and the final future restoration of Israelite sovereignty under the rule of the Messiah (7:12–8:14).Footnote ⁸

A very similar presentation of the allegorical historical development of the text is to be found in an ancient Masoretic fragment that exists only in one known manuscript. The excerpt indicates precisely which verses belong to each historical period, and according to this source, the order of events alluded to in the text starts with the Egyptian exile (1:1–3:5), continues with the wilderness, the giving of the Torah, the Sanctuary, and the sacrifices (3:6–6:11), the entry into the land and the building of the Temple (4:1–5:1), the Babylonian exile (5:2–6:3), the ascent of Ezra and Nehemiah (6:4–9), and the exile following the destruction of the Second Temple (7:12–8:4), and concludes with the coming of the Messiah and the future redemption (8:5–14).Footnote ⁹

Rashi, too, proposes a systematic allegorical interpretation that explains each verse of the text as part of a developing plot, from the Exodus from Egypt up until the future redemption.Footnote ¹⁰ In contrast to earlier midrashic teachings, which focused on the earliest, formative period of the Jewish nation—from the splitting of the Reed Sea up until Solomon's Temple—Rashi's allegorical commentary focused on the situation of the nation in exile, and the anticipation of the redemption. In the introduction to his commentary, Rashi writes:

According to Rashi, Solomon foresees that which is destined to happen in the future, and on this basis he writes his Songs—the past, present, and future of the Jewish People.Footnote ¹¹ However, it seems unclear how any significant portion of the text can be alluding to the “past” when, from Solomon's point of view, a great many of the events described would only come about in the future. To solve this problem, Rashi proposes that Solomon wrote the text as reflecting Rashi's own era—the period of the second exile—such that Rashi's generation is, as it were, the narrator of the text.Footnote ¹² The speaker describes, at the beginning of the text, the glorious history that should be borne in mind—“the former glory,” the “early love.” Later on he describes the factors that have brought about the unhappy present—“the treason which they committed”—and at the end he speaks of anticipation of the future redemption—“the favors which He promised to bestow upon them at the End of Days.”Footnote ¹³

R. Tuviah's Approach: A Description of Jewish History with Simultaneous Attention to the Past, Present, and Future

R. Tuviah's allegorical commentary differs from that proposed by his predecessors.Footnote ¹⁴ He introduces his work with the question:

R. Tuviah, too, proceeds from the assumption that Solomon foresaw, with divine inspiration, that which was destined to befall the Jewish People throughout the generations, and in light of this revelation he wrote Songs as an allegory for the history of the nation.Footnote ¹⁶ And like Rashi, he too understands the book as a composition alluding intentionally to three different time periods: the past (עוברות), the present (עומדות), and the future (אותיות).Footnote ¹⁷ However, in contrast to Rashi's view of the text as describing a developing historical process, from the Exodus from Egypt until the future redemption, R. Tuviah's allegorical commentary does not follow a continuous chronological development. Instead, he proposes that the verses of the text are to be read simultaneously as referring to the past, the present (exile), and the future (redemption). In his allegory of the past, R. Tuviah generally recalls the nation's ancient history. In the allegory of the present and the future, he combines statements relating to the state of the nation in exile, and its hope for future redemption. A dualistic allegorical reading of a single verse is a very rare phenomenon in midrashic literature,Footnote ¹⁸ and there is no terminology specifically applicable to it. R. Tuviah adopts this simultaneous reading as a central feature of his commentary, and grants it his own special terminology. While he does not explain every verse in the text in terms of both past and future, his approach is implemented over extensive sections of the text. The following are some examples.

1. Concerning the verse, “I compare you, my love, to a mare in Pharaoh's chariots” (1:9), R. Tuviah writes:

Further on in his commentary, R. Tuviah constructs an impressive systematic analogy between the redemption from Egyptian exile and the final redemption in the future.

2. The following verses (1:12–15) are likewise interpreted as a dual allegory concerning both the past and the future:

3. Concerning the verse, “the voice of the turtle-dove is heard in our land” (2:12), R. Tuviah writes:

Here R. Tuviah refers to his commentary on verses 8–13, which he understands as alluding to both Moses and the prophet Elijah.Footnote ²¹

What prompts R. Tuviah to propose a systematic dualistic allegorical reading for many of the verses of Songs?Footnote ²² First of all, this approach offers significant educational benefits. In the readings of the Targum and Rashi, Solomon's forward gaze to the future redemption appears mainly at the end of the final chapter of the text.Footnote ²³ In R. Tuviah's reading, in contrast, the anticipation of the redemption is maintained throughout. R. Tuviah wrote his commentary against the backdrop of the first Crusade and the accompanying Christian pressure against the Jewish faith. His reading transforms the text into a song of comfort and encouragement for its readers, mired in their dark exile.

In addition, R. Tuviah's innovative approach may also be understood in light of his commentary on the verse, “Turn away your eyes from me, for they have overcome me” (6:5):

According to R. Tuviah, the past and the future are closely bound together: the many good things that happened in the past are themselves an indication of what will happen in the future. It is perhaps for this reason that R. Tuviah endeavors to explain many verses in the text as simultaneous allusions to the past and the future.

Is R. Tuviah indeed innovative in proposing his dualistic allegorical interpretation? We recall that in the midrashic literature this type of reading is rare, and its appearances are local rather than systematic. In fact, there is a surprisingly similar parallel to R. Tuviah's formulation in Rabbi Sa‘adiah Gaon's Vayoshaʽ commentary (on the Song of the Sea, Exodus 15):

The resemblance between Sa‘adiah's assertion here and R. Tuviah's words in his introduction is manifest both in the comparison between Song of Songs and other songs, and in the definition of the uniqueness of Song of Songs.Footnote ²⁶ Admittedly, the two scholars arrive at their identical conclusion from different points of departure: In his words Sa‘adiah makes no reference to the “plural form” in the opening words of Songs, while for R. Tuviah this introductory formula represents the textual springboard for the three-fold (past, present, future) approach he takes to his entire commentary. Sa‘adiah suffices with a reading of some of the verses in both an allegorical (remez) and metaphorical (derash) light; he does not maintain a dualistic allegorical reading of the text as a whole. In any event, it must be remembered that R. Tuviah, as far as we are able to ascertain, did not know Arabic, and the extent to which he may have been influenced by Sa‘adiah's works is an issue that has yet to be subjected to thorough research.Footnote ²⁷ Hence it is reasonable to reject the possibility that R. Tuviah's commentary was influenced by that of Sa‘adiah.

Judeo-Christian Polemics

The allegorical level relating to “the present”—in exile—represented, both for Rashi and for R. Tuviah, an opportunity to address the events of their time and to offer their own covert apologetics in the face of Christian proselytizing.Footnote ²⁸ Kamin describes Rashi's approach in this regard in detail.Footnote ²⁹ In her view, in his commentary Rashi addresses the sin of the Jewish People, but also emphasizes divine forgiveness, with special emphasis on forgiveness for the sin of the golden calf—in contrast to the Christian view. The merit of having accepted the Torah, and the merit of the forefathers, stand by Israel for all generations and mitigate the possibility of God removing His mercy from His people. Rashi also uses his commentary to offer encouragement to the oppressed nation. He emphasizes that the exile is a temporary separation from God, with intrinsic value for the fostering of Torah study, observance of the commandments, acceptance of suffering with love, and self-sacrifice. In conclusion, Kamin writes: “In contrast [to the Christian example], Rashi's commentary presents a consolidated view whose main points had already found expression in the midrashic literature, but were not molded there in a systematic and all-encompassing manner.”Footnote ³⁰

The same might be said for the exegesis of R. Tuviah. He focuses on one main theme throughout his allegorical commentary: most of his teachings deal with the situation of the Jewish People in exile, the memory of the past, and anticipation of the future. It is relatively rare that he explains verses in contexts unrelated to this theme, and if he speaks the praises of Torah or of the righteous, it is almost always in connection with his main subject. His commentary contains almost all the emphases that Kamin notes in Rashi's work. To mention just a few of them: R. Tuviah emphasizes the “merit of the forefathers which exists forever” (p. 19) and the eternity of the Torah—“All religions turn into other faiths, but the Torah never changes and is never exchanged” (p. 75); the sin of the golden calf is forgiven: “Even though Israel sinned with the golden calf, the Holy One, blessed be He, did not remove Himself from their midst” (p. 30). He emphasizes praise of the Jewish People: “Even though the nations of the world conspire against us, to rid themselves of us, we have not forgotten His Oneness, nor have we betrayed His covenant” (p. 36). He views the exile as possessing independent value: “To receive a good reward for the subjugation of exile” (p. 20).Footnote ³¹

Further on, Kamin asserts that “nowhere in his commentary on Songs does Rashi note that his intention is polemical.”Footnote ³² R. Tuviah likewise announces no polemical intentions, but in contrast to Rashi he does sometimes present the events befalling the Jewish nation in his own time as the background to his interpretations. The following are three examples:

4. The most interesting example is his claim that in the verse, “… therefore the maidens love You” (1:3), Solomon is alluding to the Crusades at the end of the eleventh century:

The echo of the devastating blow delivered to the communities of western Europe during the First Crusade had reached R. Tuviah and he took pains to include this in his commentary.Footnote ³⁴

5. The words סַמְּכוּנִי בָּאֲשִׁישׁוֹת רַפְּדוּנִי בַּתַּפּוּחִים—“Let me lean against the stout trunks, let me couch among the apple trees” (2:5) are interpreted by R. Tuviah as an allusion both to the past—

and to the future:

R. Tuviah then goes on to cite a teaching from Shir ha-Shirim Zuta referring to the current exile:

He concludes by focusing on his own generation:

6. The verse, פָּתַחְתִּי אֲנִי לְדוֹדִי וְדוֹדִי חָמַק עָבָר נַפְשִׁי יָצְאָה בְדַבְּרוֹ בִּקַּשְׁתִּיהוּ וְלֹא מְצָאתִיהוּ קְרָאתִיו וְלֹא עָנָנִי “I opened for my beloved, but my beloved had turned away and was gone; my soul failed when He spoke; I sought Him but could not find Him; I called to Him but He gave me no answer” (5:6), is interpreted by R. Tuviah as an allusion to the events of his own time, and at the end of his comment here he broadens this perspective and asserts that many other verses, too, refer to the present exile:

R. Tuviah's commentary includes many more allusions to his own period.Footnote ³⁷

In summary, although R. Tuviah and Rashi lived in different geographical regions and in different cultural environments, there is considerable similarity in the way each of them addresses the events of their time.

R. Tuviah and Rashi—A Mutual Link?

As we have seen, R. Tuviah forged a new path, different from that of his predecessors, in his allegorical commentary. Nevertheless, a comparison between the commentaries of R. Tuviah and of Rashi on Songs exposes several points of similarity between them. The main point is that these two commentators were the first to propose integrated commentaries on Songs that included both a literal and an allegorical level. In a separate article I address the similarities between them in their attention to the literal level, including the mention of the rabbinic teaching, “Scripture must [also] take into account the literal meaning” (אין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו), and an innovative proposal of a literal exegetical approach to some of the verses of Songs.Footnote ³⁸ Above, we have seen the similarity between them in relation to Judeo-Christian polemics.

On the allegorical level, too, despite the significant differences, a similarity between the two commentaries may be discerned. Firstly it should be noted that R. Tuviah and Rashi are the first to refer to the allegorical interpretation of Songs as a dugma (allegory). R. Tuviah, commenting on the verse, כִּי חוֹלַת אַהֲבָה אָנִי —“For I am lovesick” (2:5), writes:

Rashi makes this assertion no less than twenty-one times in his commentary. The term dugma appears occasionally in texts predating the eleventh century (the talmudic sages, Geonim, Karaites), but there is no source earlier than Rashi and R. Tuviah in which this term is linked to Songs.Footnote ³⁹

Furthermore, in many instances both commentators propose identical allegorical interpretations for verses of the text. In most cases the similarity may be attributed to the common sources that served both of them. However, in one instance they both offer the identical, unique allegorical interpretation, for which I have found no earlier source:

The image of “your two breasts” appears twice in Songs (4:5; 7:4). The midrashic sources address the first appearance only, and explain it as an allusion to Moses and Aaron. I have found no midrash that views “your two breasts” as an allusion to “the king and the priest.”Footnote ⁴⁰ R. Tuviah explains both verses in this way.Footnote ⁴¹ Rashi adopts the midrashic view in regarding 4:5 as an allusion to Moses and Aaron, but he understands 7:4 as alluding to the king and the high priest. The reason for the discrepancy between the two commentators stems from their different interpretations of the allegorical level of the text: R. Tuviah does not propose a chronological development in the text, and he is therefore able to regard both verses as alluding to the king and the righteous priest. Rashi, in contrast, proposes a chronological development: Chapter 4 deals with the period of the sanctuary in the wilderness, while chapter 7 addresses a completely different period—the second exile—such that there is no possibility of interpreting the verse as an allusion to Moses and Aaron.

The points of similarity between the two commentators, on both the literal and the allegorical level, are not all that numerous. Nevertheless, they give rise to the question of whether these two scholars were aware of each other's work.Footnote ⁴² With regard to the connection between their respective commentaries on the Pentateuch, different views have been proposed. Some argue that these scholars were familiar with each other's biblical commentary while others argue that they were not.Footnote ⁴³

Concerning the commentary on Songs, it is difficult to decide one way or the other. It is doubtful whether the totality of the links between the two works suffices to support the hypothesis of a thorough and all-encompassing familiarity of these scholars with each other's work. On the other hand, if we suppose that there was no familiarity between them at all, we must assume that they were both inspired, simultaneously but independently, to propose a new and original exegetical approach to Songs, addressing both the literal and the allegorical level. Of course this is possible, but it seems unlikely.

Is it possible, in chronological terms, that one of these commentators saw the other's commentary on Songs? As noted above, R. Tuviah mentions the persecutions of 1096 (the Rhineland massacres). If we assume that this is not a later addendum that he introduced after completing his commentary, then his work must have been written towards the end of the eleventh century (perhaps after he finished writing his commentary on the Pentateuch). It would appear that Rashi (who died in 1105) wrote his commentary on the Five Scrolls at the very end of his life,Footnote ⁴⁴ and hence there is a very limited period of less than a decade in which Rashi might have come across R. Tuviah's commentary. It is quite possible that during these years Rashi heard of this work. Ta-Shma devotes a number of articles to the system of links between the Byzantine Jewish center and the Ashkenazic center during the eleventh to fourteenth centuries, and concludes that they were extensive, with a flow of traditions and literary works between them despite the great geographical distance.Footnote ⁴⁵ Steiner goes so far as to propose that R. Shemaʽya, Rashi's disciple, who knew Greek and was familiar with the customs of Rome and the values of Byzantine coins, served as the link connecting Rashi with the sages of Byzantium.Footnote ⁴⁶ To quote Elbaum:

As mentioned, on the basis of the small number of points of similarity between the two commentators it is difficult to assert any sort of significant familiarity between them. However, we might cautiously propose that Rashi became aware of rumors or indirect quotes relating to commentaries on Songs that were circulating in Byzantium. This assumption would explain the points of similarity between the commentators, and it is possible that such rumors influenced Rashi to present his dualistic commentary on Songs—a systematic commentary addressing both the literal and the allegorical level of the text.

* * * * *

This article has addressed three issues pertaining to R. Tuviah's commentary on Songs: (a) his unique approach to the allegorical interpretation (in comparison with that of the midrashim and Rashi); (b) his participation in Judeo-Christian polemics; and (c) the question of the connection between his commentary on Songs and that of Rashi. We first examined R. Tuviah's unique allegorical commentary: he proposes that the verses of Songs be read as describing—simultaneously—the past, the present, and the future of the Jewish nation. This sort of reading is extremely rare in rabbinic midrashic literature, but R. Tuviah adopts it to create a systematic allegorical commentary. We also looked at R. Tuviah's contribution to the polemic against Christianity. At certain points there is a similarity between the interpretations of R. Tuviah and those of Rashi. Such points are not numerous, but the fact that these two scholars were the first to propose a literal interpretation of Songs, along with the similarity in their relation to the Judeo-Christian polemic and the similarity of their respective interpretations of the allegorical level, all support the possibility that Rashi was exposed to reports of R. Tuviah's commentary on Songs.