R. David Kimhi (Radak), EJ 10:1001-1004.

Medieval W. Christendom
KIMHI, DAVID (known as Radak from the acronym of Rabbi David Kimhi; Maistre
Petit; 1160?–1235?), grammarian and exegete of Narbonne, Provence. The son of Joseph
Kimhi
and brother and pupil of Moses Kimhi
, David was a teacher in his native town
and was active in public causes. He is known to have participated in the judgment
(between 1205 and 1218) of several contentious persons from Barcelona who dishonored
the memory of Rashi. During the Maimonidean controversy of 1232, he undertook a
journey to Toledo to gain the support of Judah Ibn Alfakhar
for the Maimonideans. He
was prevented from reaching his destination because of illness but his strong defense of
Maimonides and the latter’s followers together with Ibn Alfakhar’s critique of Kimhi have
been preserved in the correspondence between them (in Kovez Teshuvot ha-Rambam,
Leipzig, 1859, pt. 3).

Philology

Kimhi’s first work was his philological treatise, the Mikhlol, written in two sections;the
grammatical portion (Helek ha-Dikduk) which itself came to be known as the Mikhlol
(Constantinople, 1532), and the lexicon (Helek ha-Inyan) known independently as the
Sefer ha-Shorashim (before 1480). Kimhi’s purpose in composing the Mikhlol was to
provide a middle ground between the lengthy and detailed treatises of Jonah Ibn Janah
and Judah b. David Hayyuj
and the extreme brevity and concision ofAbraham Ibn
Ezra
and the elder Kimhis. His chief contribution in grammar lies in the arrangement of
the material and the popularization of the innovations of his father and brother. These
include the division of the vowels into five long and five short, the treatment of the nifal
as the passive of the kal,the recognition of the dagesh lene, etc. Seeing himself only as a
“gleaner after the reapers,” Kimhi nevertheless made some original contributions,
including his distinguishing of the vav consecutive (vav ha-sherut) from the vav
conjunctive and his concern for the continued development of the language through the
recognition of the legitimacy of post-biblical forms. In point of fact, Kimhi was criticized
for being highly unconventional as a grammarian by such figures as Joseph ibn Kaspi
,
Profiat Duran
,David b. Solomon Ibn Yahya
, and Abraham de Balmes
. He found
advocates, however, in the Magen David of Abraham b. Elisha b. Mattathias, the Mikhlol
Yofiof Solomon ibn Melekh, and the writings of Elijah Levita
, and it was due to the
Mikhlol and the Shorashim that most of the works of his predecessors sank into oblivion.
In Jewish circles, the phrase “If there is no flour [ kemah, etymon of Kimhi], there is no
Torah” (Avot 3-17) was applied to him, while his influence on the Christian Hebraists of
the Renaissance was profound. Reuchlin
‘s Rudimenta Linguae Hebraicae and Lexicon
Hebraicum (1506) and Santes Pagninus’ Institutiones (1520) and Thesaurus (1529) are
basically reworkings of Kimhi, while Sebastian Muenster
‘s writings betray his influence
heavily.

Masorah

Much of the material in the Mikhlol was abridged in the Et Sofer (Lyck, 1864), a manual
for copyists of the Bible, necessitated by widespread ignorance among scribes and the
proliferation of biblical manuscript traditions in the 12 th century. In it he treats in detail
such problems as the keri and the ketiv and the accents. His interest in masorah was not
limited to this treatise, for numerous observations in this area are recorded in the
commentaries. Especially noteworthy is his theory that the keri and the ketiv developed
out of a confusion of readings in the time of the men of the Great Synagogue
who,
according to him, established the text (“Introduction to Joshua”). His concern for the
establishment of the correct text is attested to by his travels in pursuit of old manuscripts.
Exegesis
Kimhi began his exegetical activity with a commentary to the Book of Chronicles (in
Rabbinic Bible, Venice, 1548) written in response to the request of a student of his
father’s for an exegesis of that book in accordance with the plain sense or derekh ha-
peshat in contrast to the homiletic commentaries which were then prevalent. This was
followed by commentaries to Genesis (ed. by R.L. Kirchheim, 1842), all the prophetic
books (Guadalajara, 1482), and Psalms (1477). In all of these, Kimhi endeavored to
utilize the methodology of Ibn Ezra and the elder Kimhis, stressing scientific philological
analysis and de-emphasizing homiletical digression. Unlike these predecessors, however,
Kimhi relied heavily on rabbinic literature, distinguishing between perush or
interpretation which conformed to his standards of peshat, and purely homiletical
interpretations orderashot, many of which he included nonetheless for added interest. In
his exegesis too, Kimhi strove for clarity and readibility in an attempt to depart from the
compression and obscurity of his predecessors.

Philosophical Interests

Kimhi read widely in philosophic and scientific literature and was strongly influenced by
the rationalism of Ibn Ezra and Maimonides. He frequently alluded to philosophical
matters as an aid to exegesis on the one hand and in an attempt to popularize such studies
on the other. He was no original philosopher and his theories are adaptations of those of
his predecessors. Thus his theory of prophecy parallels that of Maimonides in the
discussion of the prerequisites for and the levels of prophecy, although Kimhi goes
farther in recognizing the possibility of the prophethood of a gentile. He follows
Maimonides too on the problem of providence in saying that individual providence is
subject to intellectual attainment, although he expresses the somewhat independent view
that animals may be subject to individual providence in the event that their actions benefit
or harm a human being. Kimhi generally attempted to explain miracles naturalistically or
to underplay them. There is considerable discussion of the classification of the
commandments with reliance principally on pre-Maimonidean terminology and
conceptions, but there is little actual analysis of the “reasons for the commandments”
(ta’amei ha-mitzvot) since he did not write on the legal portions of the Pentateuch. Using
the material in Maimonides’Guide of the Perplexed as a model, Kimhi wrote two very
detailed “esoteric” (nistar) commentaries to Genesis 2-7–5-1 (see bibliography) and to the
first chapter of Ezekiel (in the Rabbinical Bible, Warsaw, 1902).

Kimhi’s dissemination of philosophic material in the commentaries, intended to whet the
appetite of the general reader, came under severe censure from a number of authorities,
including Judah ibn Alfakhar,Jacob Emden
, and David b. Solomon ibn Abi Zimra
,
despite the fact that, with the exception of the two philosophical commentaries, his
rationalistic material was cited with considerable discretion. Ironically, Kimhi’s
commentaries were considered deficient in their rationalism byImmanuel b. Solomon
of
Rome who himself was given to allegorical interpretation.

Polemics

The commentaries contain a considerable amount of polemical material, much of it based
on the Sefer ha-Berit of Joseph Kimhi. He attacks a number of christological
interpretations by demonstrating Christian “corruption” of the text (Isa. 2-22; Ps. 22-17;
110-1, etc.) or the inapplicability (Isa. 7-14; Ezra 44-2) or irrationality (Ps. 87, end; 110,
end, etc.) of the interpretation. He inveighs frequently against the allegorical mode of the
Christian interpreters (Ps. 19-10; 119 passim, etc.). Certain basic questions in the Jewish-
Christian controversy, chief among which is the identity of the “true Israel,” were
frequently raised. Kimhi wards off the attempt of Christian theologians to claim the name
of Israel or other biblical names of the Jewish people for the Church and lays great stress
on the superior morality and religiosity of the Jews. He defends the taking of interest
from a gentile “for in general they hate Israel” but discourages exacting it from a
righteous gentile (Ps. 22-23). Although very much aware of Israel’s tribulations in exile,
Kimhi believed in a special providence for the Jewish people which paralleled the special
providence of the sage, in that Israel is a nation of sages “who meditated on My deeds
and confessed My unity” (Isa. 43-7). Never explaining how this providence is manifested,
he limited himself to frequent references to the future redemption in the messianic age.
The polemic material in the Psalms commentary was collected and printed separately as
Teshuvot la-Nozerim in the Altdorf (1644) edition of Lipmann Muehlhausen’s Sefer ha-
Nizzah on. The so-called ” Vikku’ah ha-RaDaK,” printed in the Milhemet Hovah
(Constantinople, 1710), has been shown to be falsely attributed to Kimhi.

Spurious Writings

Several other works have been wrongly ascribed to Kimhi, including a commentary to
Ethics of the Fathers (Turin Siddur, 1525); the commentaries on part of the Guide and the
creed of Maimonides; the commentary on Pittum ha-Ketoret (Kovez Devarim Nehmadim,
1902); the Perush Shehitah (H.B. Levy, Mikdash Me’at, Ms. 152, 4); a commentary on
Ruth (published by J. Mercier, Paris, 1563). There are several medieval testimonies to
commentaries on the remaining four books of the Pentateuch and on Proverbs but these,
like the Job commentary in I. Schwartz’s Tikvat Enosh (1868), may have been culled
from his philological writings.