Bar-Ilan University
Parashat Hashavua Study Center
Shabbat Hagadol/ Pesah 5771/ April 16, 2011
Lectures on the weekly Torah reading by the faculty of Bar-Ilan University in Ramat Gan,
Israel. A project of the Faculty of Jewish Studies, Paul and Helene Shulman Basic Jewish
Studies Center, and the Office of the Campus Rabbi. Published on the Internet under
the sponsorship of Bar-Ilan University's International Center for Jewish Identity.
Prepared for Internet Publication by the Computer Center Staff at Bar-Ilan University.
Inquiries
and
comments
to:
Dr.
Isaac
Gottlieb,
Department
of
Bible,
gottlii@mail.biu.ac.il
Dr. Baruch Alster
Paul and Helene Shulman Basic Jewish Studies Center
Northern French Exegesis on the Song of Songs
The Song of Songs, read on the intermediate Sabbath of Passover, opens with the words,
"The Song of Songs, by Solomon." In other words, the title of the work ascribes it to King
Solomon, of whom it is said in I Kings (5:12): "His songs numbered one thousand and five."
The Sages deduced from this that Solomon was the author of Song of Songs. This idea also
appears in homiletic works, such as Song of Songs Rabbah 1.8 [on verse 1]:
Rabbi Judan said: It is to teach you that whoever discourses on the Torah in public
merits that the holy spirit should rest on him. From whom do you learn this? From
Solomon; for because he discoursed on the Torah in public, he earned the privilege
that the holy spirit rested on him and he composed three books, Proverbs,
Ecclesiastes, and The Song of Songs. (Soncino ed., vol. 9, p. 10)1
Aside from ascribing the Song of Songs to Solomon, this homily explains why the Song of
Songs was included in the canon – because it was written under the inspiration of the holy
1
Similarly in many other parts of Chapter 1 of Song of Songs Rabbah; likewise in Tanhuma Beshalah
10; Aggadat Shir ha-Shirim 1, lines 50-82. Many homilies dealing with a single verse from Song of
Song use the expression, "Solomon said," or the like.
1
spirit. Even if there were Sages who disputed the sanctity of this book,2 in the end Rabbi
Akiva's emphatic position was accepted: "All of Scripture is holy, and the Song of Songs is
the Holy of Holies" (Mishnah, Yadayim 3.5).
Most of the medieval commentators took a similar approach and viewed the Song of Songs
as written by Solomon under holy inspiration. For example, Rabbi Isaiah Mitrani comments
on the verse in I Kings:
He also composed one thousand and five songs. Not all of them were admitted into
the canon, for they were not all inspired by the holy spirit; but those that were
inspired by the holy spirit were admitted into the canon.
Nevertheless, there were certain medieval commentators who viewed the sanctity of Song
of Songs as a more complex question. We discuss their views below.
One commentator maintained that Song of Songs was not written by Solomon, but by one of
his wives, and that she is the beloved who appears in this book. This view rests primarily on
the fact that the beloved is the main speaker in the book. Rabbi Isaac Arama (Spain, 15th
century) held such a view in his commentary on Song of Songs, but he was surely not the
first to think so, for there is a commentary from 12th-century northern France, mistakenly
ascribed to Rashi, that subscribes to such a view (Song of Songs 1:1):3
By Solomon. This means songs about Solomon, as in "belonging to King Ahasuerus"
(Esther 1:9), here, "regarding Solomon." Some claim the beloved of King Solomon
composed these songs about him, since it says in this book, "King Solomon made
him a palanquin" (Song 3:9), "there is Solomon's couch" (ibid., 7). But this is
nonsense, for throughout the book the name of the beloved is not mentioned, but
only the name of Solomon. So we find that Solomon wrote it, just like "the Proverbs
of Solomon" (Prov. 1:1; 10:1), "the words of Koheleth" (Eccles. 1:1), "the words of
Agur" (Prov. 30:1), "the prophecies of Isaiah" (Isa. 1:1). The wise person will
understand this, for it is the way of women to sing in a chorus… But here it is
Solomon who created this song, putting it in the mouth of the lovers, the woman
singing about her beloved. For in all the words of the song that are not spoken by
them both, she says, "My beloved spoke thus to me" (2:10). Nowhere in the book
do you find, "My beloved [woman] answered me."
2
Many view the controversy over whether the scroll of the Song of Songs renders the hands unclean
(Mishnah, Yadayim 3.5) as hinting at such a controversy, thus the attempt to sequester this work
(Avoth de Rabbi Nathan, Version A, 1b). It seems that one should view similarly the words of Rabbi
Jonathan in the homily where he calls Song of Songs "words to be sung" (Song of Songs Rabbah
1.1.10). Cf. Baruch Alster, Ahavah Enoshit ve-Zikata le-Ahavah Ruhanit ba-Farshanut ha-Yehudit leShir ha-Shirim, doctoral dissertation, Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan 2007, p. 4, note 13.
3
Manuscript Acq. E Doni 121, from Florence (The National Library of Israel, Institute of Microfilmed
Hebrew Manuscripts, film 18007), which includes the Five Scrolls and Haftarah readings.
Lamentations, Esther and the haftarahs are accompanied by Rashi's commentary, while Song of
Songs, Ruth, and Ecclesiastes are explained by an anonymous commentary. In the Florentine library
all the commentaries were cataloged as Rashi. Cf. Alster, ibid., pp. 14-16. For notes on the text cited
here, see loc. sit., p. 70.
2
This commentary, ascribed to Rashi, mentions but rejects the view that one of Solomon's
wives was the author of Song of Songs. In his opinion, Solomon was the author, but he
wrote the book from a woman's point of view; the author was a man, the narrator of the
poem a woman. Nevertheless, the opinion that a woman actually wrote Song of Songs was
evidently current in this commentator's time.
Another medieval commentary held that Solomon composed the songs in this work but did
not redact them into a single book. We refer to an anonymous commentary from northern
France that survived on the first three chapters and was published by Rabbi Simeon
Eppenstein over a century ago.4 This is what the commentator writes on the first verse of
Song of Songs:
The Song of Songs. A special one of the songs by Solomon, for there were many
songs, as it says in Scripture, "his songs numbered one thousand and five" (I Kings
5:12), and this is one of them. It must be said that of those songs, wise men chose
these songs and put them together, to teach about the Holy One, blessed be He, and
the Community of Israel, as it is said: a song composed of the songs by Solomon, for
they took of his songs and collected them into this work, arranging it in the way of
the Holy One, blessed be He, and the Community of Israel, and the rest of the songs
they left. For this was created by holy inspiration and included as part of holy writ,
for it is Holy of Holies, since men of wisdom arranged the words of Solomon, as it is
written: "These too are proverbs of Solomon, which the men of King Hezekiah of
Judah copied" (Prov. 25:1).
According to this commentary, Song of Songs was written in two stages: first Solomon
wrote many songs, not all of them necessary sacred, and later men of wisdom ("the men of
King Hezekiah") collected those songs that seemed worthy of describing the relationship
between G-d and Israel. Thus this commentator accepts that principle that the work is to be
attributed to Solomon but maintains that Solomon did not write it as a single composition,
and the songs were gathered together some time later.5
Another issue that comes up here concerns the sanctity of the work. According to this
commentator, the sanctity does not stem from the songs themselves that Solomon wrote,
nor from his having been inspired by the holy spirit. When they were composed they were
understood as dealing only with love between a man and a woman. Only by virtue of the
way they were edited by the men of King Hezekiah, who were inspired by the holy spirit to
understand that some of the songs could be interpreted in terms of G-d's love for Israel, did
the Song of Songs enter the holy writ.
Regarding the sanctity of this book, this commentator did not take an extreme position, for
he maintained that Song of Songs entered the canon by holy inspiration. There is another
view, however, by a medieval commentator from northern France that the book was not
written under holy inspiration but received its status for a different reason: its popularity.
4
S. Eppenstein, "Fragment d'un commentaire anonyme du Cantique des Cantiques," REJ 53 (1907), pp.
242-254.
5
Cf. Bava Batra 15a: "Hezekiah and his followers wrote Isaiah, Proverbs, Song of Songs and
Ecclesiastes."
3
This commentary did not absolutely reject the sanctity of the book, but separated the
question of its canonization from the question of its religious significance:
The Song of Songs – this was one of the songs written by Solomon, who wrote many
such, as it is said, "his songs numbered one thousand and five" (I Kings 5:12). Why
did this, of all his songs, enter the canon? It entered the canon because it had
become a favorite. And because of homilies, reading the songs allegorically: it
entered the canon because it was interpreted as relating to bondage, their Maker
seeking to redeem them and set them apart from other nations to be His people,
and they longing for Him and trusting in Him, that He will not abandon them for all
time but will redeem them in His great mercy and kindness (accord. Isa. 63:7).
Solomon saw all this in a vision, and wrote it allegorically about him and his wife and
her friends.6
This commentator, who according to Sarah Japhet dates to the late 12th or early 13th
century,7 presents two possible reasons why the Song of Songs was included in the canon:
one, in its own right – " It entered the canon because it had become a favorite"; and the
other, on account of the Sages – "interpreting it homiletically, … therefore it entered the
canon … and Solomon saw all this in a vision and wrote it allegorically." But from the
structure of this comments and its non-allegorical interpretation of the book as a whole, it is
clear that the author did not agree with the view of the midrash, that Solomon wrote the
Song of Songs as a holy book. In his opinion, it was written as a secular work, as stated by
the previous commentator. However the present commentator holds that even the
canonization of the Song of Songs stemmed not from the holy spirit of the redactors, nor
from the force of the allegorical interpretation attached to the work, but simply because of
its popularity.
In conclusion, most of the medieval Bible commentators accepted the tradition of the Sages
that King Solomon wrote the Song of Songs with holy inspiration. The views which we have
presented here attest to the existence of other independent traditions, especially in
northern France, regarding the reasons for this book's canonization.
6
Commentary of Rabbi Joseph Kara, in Mikraot Gedolot Ha-Keter, 2nd CD version (July 2006). It
should be noted that this is not actually Kara's commentary. See Sara Japhet, "Peshuto shel Mikra beShir ha-Shirim: Li-demutam shel Rashi u-Mamshikhei Darko ke-Mefarshei ha-Peshat," in A. Grossman,
S. Japhet (eds.), Rashi: Demuto ve-Yetzirato, Jerusalem 2009, vol. 1, p. 218.
7
Japhet (loc. sit.), p. 218, 221-222.
4