Song of Songs in a 14th c. manuscript of the Pentateuch and Five Scrolls, MS 19776, f.117v. British Library
Song of Songs: The Emergence of Peshat Interpretation
The Song of Songs is a collection of love poetry. The Rabbis read it as an allegory of the relationship between God and the Jewish people. Only in the Middle Ages, in Spain and Northern France, did scholars begin to pay attention to the plain (Peshat) meaning of the text. Some went as far as dropping the allegory altogether and treating it as love poetry, as it was originally intended.
Published: March 28, 2018
|
Last Updated: September 7, 2026
See Sara Japhet, “Rashi’s Commentary on the Song of Songs: The Revolution of the Peshat and its Aftermath,” in Mein Haus wird ein Bethaus für alle Vӧlker gennant werden (Jes 56,7): Judentum seit der Zeit des Zweiten Tempels in Geschichte, Literatur und Kult; Festschrift für Thomas Willi,ed. J. Männchen, T. Reiprich (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 2007), 199-219; see p.199. Hebrew version: id., “פשוטו של מקרא בשיר השירים: לדמותם של רש”י וממשיכי דרכו כפרשני הפשט”, in Rashi, the Man and his Work, ed. Avraham Grossman and Sara Japhet, 2:205-226. Jerusalem: Merkaz Zalman Shazar le-toldot Yiśra’el, 2008. Also in id., דור דור ופרשניו (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 2008), 135-156.
Editor’s note: For more on this passage, see Carl Ehrlich, “Loving God Erotically,” TheTorah.com (2016).
See Michael Fishbane, Song of Songs, The JPS Bible Commentary (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2015), xix-xx.
For example, Salmon ben Jeroham, a tenth-century Karaite exegete, stresses the allegorical nature of the work:
From the beginning of the book to 7:10 every expression denoting a man refers to the creator; from 7:10 to the end of the book such expressions refer to the Messiah son of David. Whenever the feminine is employed the congregation of Israel is intended.
Similarly, his fellow Karaite Yefet ben Eli (10th cent.), opined that the Song is entirely esoteric:
From beginning to end not a word of it is to be taken exoterically. It was a prophecy revealed to Solomon pertaining to the relationship between God and Israel.
See Daniel Frank, “Karaite Commentaries on the Song of Songs from Tenth-Century Jerusalem,” in With Reverence for the Word (ed. Jane Dammen McAuliffe, Barry D. Walfish and Joseph W. Goering; Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 54-56.
And in the Christian world as well, where it was read as an allegory of the love between Jesus Christ, the bridegroom and his bride, the Church. See E. Ann Matter, The Voice of My Beloved: The Song of Songs in Western Medieval Christianity(Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1990).
The Hebrew is from the critical edition of Rashi’s commentary by Judah Rosenthal; see J. Rosenthal, “פירוש רש”י על שיר השירים” [Rashi’s Commentary on the Song of Songs], in the Samuel K. Mirsky Jubilee Volume (ed. Simon Bernstein and Gershon A. Churgin; New York: Jubilee Committee, 1958), 136-88], 136; see also the edition in מקראות גדולות הכתר: חמש מגילות [Mikra’ot Gedolot ‘Haketer’: The Five Scrolls], ed. Menachem Cohen (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University, 2012), 22 (1st grp), which differs from Rosenthal’s but does not provide information on the MSS or eds. used.
Cf. b. Shabbat 63a, where the text reads, אין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו, “a verse cannot depart from its plain meaning. The word we have here, mashmaʿo connotes the literal meaning. Versions vary: one printed edition consulted had “peshuto u-mashmaʿo” (Miqra’ot gedolot ha-Ma’or, Jerusalem: Mekhon ha-Ma’or 2000, 2). Peshat and mashmaʿ are not equivalent; mashmaʿ is usually understood to be the literal meaning, while the peshat meaning is not necessarily the literal one. I suspect that for Rashi mashmaʿ has a similar meaning to that of peshat. On this, see Sarah Kamin, “דוגמא in Rashi’s Commentary on Song of Songs,” in id., Jews and Christians Interpret the Bible (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1991, Heb), 13-30 (14). The usual translation for peshat, “plain or contextual meaning” does not do the term justice, but no better English equivalent has been suggested. On Rashi’s introduction to the Song of Songs, see the important analysis by Sarah Kamin in her book Rashi’s Exegetical Categorization in Respect to the Distinction Between Peshat and Derash (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1986)(Heb.), 77-86.
Kamin, Rashi’s Exegetical Categorization, 82
On this point see Kamin, Rashi’s Exegetical Categorization, 81.
See Japhet, “Rashi’s Commentary,” 206.
Rashbam’s commentary on the Song of Songs was first published by Adolph Jellinek in 1855 and was recently edited in a critical edition by Sara Japhet: The Commentary of Rabbi Samuel ben Meir (Rashbam) on the Song of Songs (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 2008) [Heb.] Some scholars have questioned the attribution to Rashbam, though none call into question the period or provenance of the commentary—12th century Northern France. Japhet, in the introduction to her edition (pp. 9-51) convincingly defends Rashbam’s authorship.
See Japhet, “Rashi’s Commentary,” 207-10.
Ibid., 209; Japhet, Commentary of Rabbi Samuel, 71-87.
In general, much peshat exegetical information on the Song of Songs can be gleaned from the dictionaries and grammars of the Spanish and Provençal biblical scholars, such as Jonah ibn Janaḥ ca. 990-ca. 1055), David Qimḥi (1160-1235) and Solomon ibn Parḥon (12th cent.). The latter’s Maḥberet he-arukh was an important source for the author of the Oxford Anonymous (see below).
חמש מגילות עם תרגום סורי, ed. Adolph Hübsch (Prague, 1866; reprint: Jerusalem 1970). The single MS of this commentary is Prague, Narodni Knihova v Praze MS. XVIII F6, fols. 292v-295r. The manuscript, which is called Ḥumash Eiger, was originally in the Beit Midrash Eiger in Prague and was at some point transferred to the National Library in Prague. It contains the only known copy of this commentary.
Sara Japhet, “פירוש אנונימי לשיר השירים בכתב יד פראג (חומש איגר): מבוא ומהדורה ביקורתית” [The Anonymous commentary on the Song of Songs in Ms. Prague: A Critical Edition and Introduction]. In ליישב פשוטו של מקרא: אסופת מחקרים בפרשנות במקרא [To Settle the Plain Meaning of the Verse: Studies in Biblical Exegesis], ed. Sara Japhet and Eran Viezel, (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 2011), 206-247. It also appears in the edition of Five Scrolls in the Mikra’ot gedolot Haketer series, edited by Menachem Cohen (Ramat-Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 2012), mistakenly attributed to Joseph Qara. The attribution to Qara stems from the fact that the author of the other four scroll commentaries in the Prague manuscript is definitely Joseph Qara and so, some have argued for Qara’s authorship for this one as well. But Samuel Poznanski, in his authoritative introduction on Northern French Exegesis (פירוש על יחזקאל ותרי עשר לרבי אליעזר מבלגנצי [Warsaw, 1912], lxxxvi-lxxxvii), argued against it and this view has recently been upheld by Sara Japhet, “The Anonymous Commentary,” 207, 228-230), who situates him in the school of R. Eliezer of Beaugency.
This explanation of shir ha-shirim is unusual. Most commentaries explain the term as a superlative—the finest or the best of Solomon’s songs. Our exegete reads it as “one of the many songs written by Solomon.”
The introduction begins with an interesting example of redaction criticism, as the exegete argues that the first verse was not written by Solomon but by a later scribe:
הסופר מגיד לנו ששלמה שר השירה הזאת ולא דברי שלמה הם. והתחלת הספר ישקני מנשיקות. וכן דברי קהלת דברי סופר הם וכן: במשלי שלמה בן דוד דברי סופר הם, שמספר משלות שבספר זה שלמה [אמרם] והתחלת הספר מפרש למטה.
The scribe is telling us that Solomon sang this Song, but these are not the words of Solomon. The beginning of the book is “Let him kiss me of the kisses.” Similarly, “the words of Qohelet” are the words of a scribe, and also in Proverbs, “The Proverbs of Solomon the son of David (Prov 1:1) are the words of a scribe telling that the author of the proverbs in this book is Solomon.
Rashbam makes a similar claim regarding the opening and closing verses of Ecclesiastes. See, Zev Farber, “Who Said ‘All Is Futile’?” TheTorah.com (2014).
It is possible that this summary of the allegorical interpretation of the Song is a later addition by a scribe who felt uncomfortable with a commentary that did not even mention the allegorical meaning. Otherwise, one would expect that the author would say why he was not following the allegory in his commentary. But, since there are no other MSS of this text, we can only speculate. See Japhet, “Anonymous Commentary,” 209-11, who treats this passage as original.
The author of the commentary [or of this interpolation] must have been influenced by Rashi’s use of this term; see above. Re dugma in Rashi’s commentary, see Kamin, “Dugma,” 13-30.
MT: משכני.
Henry John Mathews, “פירוש שיר השירים לא נודע מחברו” = “Anonymous Commentary on the Song of Songs,” in תהלה למשה, קבוצת מאמרים בחכמת ישראל לכבוד … מו”ה משה שטיינשניידר ביום בואו לגבורות [Festschrift zum achtzigsten geburtstage Moritz Steinschneider’s], 164-185; 238-240 (non-Hebrew section) (Leipzig, 1896; reprint: Jerusalem: Makor, 1970.
Sara Japhet, Barry Dov Walfish, The Way of Lovers(Leiden: Brill, 2017).
I would suggest the possibility that there originally was an introduction that was intentionally omitted by a copyist who found it heretical, or at least disrespectful of the traditional understanding of the Song, but still decided that the exegesis of the song as a whole had value and was worth preserving. The fact that the commentary begins at the very top of a folio with the second verse is difficult to explain and therefore invites such speculation.
The author is not entirely consistent here but does state several times that Solomon is the lover. Cf. the similar position taken by the author of the Prague Anonymous On this question, see Japhet and Walfish, The Way of Lovers, 21-22, 45, 61-62.
MT: שתו.
MT: לבבתִני.
The noun אגוז is a hapax legomenon [a unique word in the Bible] and is usually explained as the name of “a tree-fruit with a hard shell.” See A. Even-Shoshan, המילון החדש[The New Dictionary], vol. 1 (Jerusalem: Qiryat sefer, 1997), 13. Early dictionaries avoid providing an etymology; Menaḥem ben Saruq does not include אגוז in his מחברת and Jonah ibn Janaḥ only remarks: “this term is known in the Mishnah;” cf. Jonah ibn Janah, ספר השרשים [Book of Roots], trans. J. Ibn Tibbon; ed. W. Bacher (Berlin, 1896; repr. Jerusalem 1969), 12. The new biblical dictionaries do not propose a Hebrew etymology for this word, but rather give parallels in other languages. See Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT)(Leiden, 1994-2000), 10. The derivation in the Oxford Anonymous is most unusual and is found in only two other sources, Shir ha-Shirim Rabbah 6:17 and another anonymous Northern French commentary, as yet unpublished, found in the Laurenziana Library in Florence. It is possible that the latter was the source for our exegete. See Japhet and Walfish, The Way of Lovers, 10-11.
MT: אשכול לאכול.
The verse is actually in Hosea not Isaiah.
For an outline of the narrative structure of the Song as set out by the exegete, see Japhet/Walfish, The Way of Lovers, 45-59.
See Hanna Liss, Creating Fictional Worlds: Peshaṭ-Exegesis and Narrativity in Rashbam’s Commentary on the Torah (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2011).
The Torah commentary of Rashbam, the premiere example of pure peshat exegesis, was also preserved in only a single MS. And who knows how many other works of this school were not fortunate enough to survive even in a single copy.
See for example, the critique by Perez Smolenskin (1842-1885), editor, novelist, publicist, and leading proponent of the Haskalah in Eastern Europe, of the position of Heinrich Graetz, who argued in his commentary (Schir ha-Schirim [Breslau, W. Jacobsohn, 1885.]) that the Song of Songs was a polemic dating from the Hellenistic period, insisting instead that it was love poetry from the time of Solomon. For an analysis of the debate, see David Engel, “ Hebrew Nationalism and Biblical Criticism: The Attitude of Perez Smolenskin,” in Ki Baruch Hu; Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Judaic Studies in Honor of Baruch A. Levine, ed. Robert Chazan, William W. Hallo and Lawrence H. Schiffman (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999), 483-507 (see pp. 493-500). And, a couple of generations earlier, note the German translation by Moses Mendelssohn with Hebrew commentary by Joel Löwe (Brill) and Aaron Wolfssohn (1788).
Japhet, “Rashi’s Commentary,” 206.
On this term in Rashi’s commentary on the Song of Songs, see Kamin, “Dugma, 13-30. [Heb.]
