STUDIES IN JUDAEO-ARABIC CULTURE

Proceedings of the Fourteenth Conference

of the Society for Judaeo-Arabic Studies

Edited by

Haggai Ben-Shammai, Aron Dotan, Yoram Erder and

Mordechai A. Freidman

Tel Aviv University

2014
 Published with the Assistance of
The Gillman Foundation
The Kahanoff Foundation
The Portland Foundation

©
All rights reserved to Tel Aviv University
ISBN 978-965-7456-06-4
 Contents

English Section

Marzena Zawanowska
Was Moses the mudawwin of the Torah? The Question of
Authorship of the Pentateuch according to Yefet ben ‘Eli 7*

English Abstracts of the Articles in Hebrew 37*

Hebrew Section

Preface ‫ז‬
Chapter One: The Hebrew Language

Avi Tal
A Re-evaluation of Tanḥūm ha-Yerūšalmī’s Affinity
with Abraham Ibn Ezra 3
Joshua Blau
On the Early History of Prepositions in Semitic Languages 25
Dan Becker
Kinds of Modifications in Hebrew Weak Verbs and
the Distinction between the Terms badal and qalb 33
Aron Dotan
A Geniza Vocabulary in the Making 59

Chapter Two: Jewish Thought

Binyamin Abrahamov
The Obligation to Speculate in Baḥya’s Thought 71
Gabriela Berzin
Avicenna in Hebrew: The Medieval Translation of
The Salvation (Al-Najāt), the Chapter on Psychology 81
Ehud Krinis
Judeo-Arabic Manuscripts from an Ismācīlī Circle in
the Firkovitch Collections 99
Yair Shiffman
Ḥayy Ibn Yaqẓān: Philosopichal Mysticism or Socialization
of Knowledge 119

Chapter Three: Biblical Exegesis

Nahem Ilan
Between Mount Sinai and the Cliff of the Rock:
Moses as the Ultimate Sufi in Rabbi Abraham Maimuni’s
Torah Commentary 133
Mordechai Z. Cohen
The Expression bāb / abwāb al-ta’wīl (“the gate[s]
of interpretation”) in Maimonides’ Interpretive Theory 155

Chapter Four: The Karaites

Yoram Erder
Periods of Defilement and Purification from the Emission
of Semen (Lev. 15:16; Deut. 23:11-12) in Early
Karaite Halakha 185

Chapter Five: Popular Literature

Rachel Hasson Kenat

Qiṣṣat al-Maṣrī wal-Rīfī: A Poetic Debate written in
Judeo-Arabic from the Firkovitch collection 209
 Was Moses the mudawwin of the Torah?
The Question of Authorship of the
Pentateuch according to Yefet ben ‘Eli
Marzena Zawanowska
University of Warsaw

Those who speculate on the ways of glorifying God for the purpose of His
worship [= the Karaites] are much more zealous than those who practise the
service of God exactly as it is commanded [= the Rabbanites]. The latter are at
ease with their tradition, and their soul is calm like one who lives in a town, and
they fear not any hostile opposition. The former, however, is like a straggler
in a desert, who does not know what may happen. He must provide himself
with arms and prepare for battle like one expert in warfare. Be not, therefore,
astonished to see them so energetic, and do not lose courage if thou seest the
followers of the tradition, I mean the Rabbanites, falter. The former look for a
fortress where they can entrench themselves, whilst the latter lie down on their
couches in a palace well fortified of old.1

Previous studies of biblical authorship according to medieval Karaites have

focused on the analysis of diverse aspects of the innovative concept of the
biblical author-redactor or compiler-editor (al-mudawwin). It was apparently
introduced by Karaite exegetes in order to explain both the written texts and
the external historical context of the creation of particular biblical books,
or the Bible as a whole.2 Most of the research devoted to this subject has

1 Halevi, Kuzari, pp. 168–169. An expanded and slightly different version of this
paper, presented at the 14th Conference of the Society for Judaeo-Arabic Studies
(Tel Aviv, 9–13 August 2009), has recently been published as the second chapter
of my book. It is being partially reproduced in this volume with kind permission
of Brill Academic Publishers. See Zawanowska, Yefet ben ʻEli on Genesis, pp.
27–57.
2 To the best of our present knowledge, it was Yaʻqūb al-Qirqisānī (X c.), who
introduced both the term and the concept of al-mudawwin to medieval Karaite
exegesis. It was subsequently adopted and used by many Karaite exegetes from
8* Was Moses the mudawwin of the Torah?

scrutinized the role and distinct functions performed by the mudawwin in

medieval Karaite Bible commentaries, but has rarely discussed his identity.3
Especially, in the case of the Pentateuch, which Scripture itself, not to
mention long-standing Jewish tradition, has always associated with Moses,4
this question was either never raised, or it was assumed that Moses, the
traditionally understood author of the Torah, was the person associated with
this term.5 The exception to this general assumption constitutes a series of
articles by Meira Polliack, who envisions a much more complex view of the

the Jerusalem school, such as its founder Yūsuf ibn Nūḥ (X c.), his student Abū
al-Faraj Hārūn (XI c.), Sahl ben Maṣliaḥ (X–XI c.) and Yefet ben ʻEli (X–XI c.).
On this school or “house of study,” see below, n. 30.
3 See especially Ben-Shammai, “On Mudawwin” (I am grateful to Prof. Haggai
Ben-Shammai for having permitted me to read this article prior to its publication);
Polliack, “Karaite Conception of Mudawwin”; eadem, “‘Voiceʼ of Characters.”
See also Drory, Emergence of Literary Contacts, pp. 114ff and n. 14; Goldstein,
Pentateuch Exegesis, pp. 203–222; eadem, Karaite Exegesis, pp. 119–138;
Polliack & Schlossberg, “Methods of Interpretation,” pp. 26–34; eidem, Yefet ben
ʻEli on Hosea, pp. 50–58; Simon, Four Approaches to Psalms, pp. 67–95 (Heb.),
pp. 71–97 (Eng.); Wechsler, Yefet ben ʻEli on Esther, pp. 28–34. For more on
the role that Yefet ascribed to the human mudawwin in editing different biblical
books as well as the Bible in general, see also Marwick, “Order of Books.” On
the influence of this concept on later Karaite and Rabbanite exegesis, see Steiner,
“Theory of Biblical Redaction.”
4 For a discussion in which Moses is identified as the human author of the Pentateuch
by tradition rather than by Scripture itself, see, e.g., Sternberg, Poetics of Biblical
Narrative, pp. 58–83, where the author states: “Tradition thus casts Moses in the
role of author or mediator of the Pentateuch. Yet the narrative itself makes no such
claim. […] In short, Moses appears as writing within the plot rather than as the
writer within the narrative, still less as self-styled writer” (p. 66). For the Torah
leaving “deliberately vague” the question of Moses’ role in the process of writing
the Pentateuch, see Polliack, “Karaite Conception of Mudawwin,” pp. 353–354;
eadem, “‘Voiceʼ of Characters,” pp. 898–899.
5 On Yaʻqūb al-Qirqisānī’s identification of al-mudawwin – as the human author of
the Torah – with Moses, see Ben-Shammai, “On Mudawwin,” pp. 4–14; Drory,
Emergence of Literary Contacts, pp. 114ff, and n. 14; Goldstein, Pentateuch
Exegesis, p. 214; eadem, Karaite Exegesis, p. 123. On a similar identification in
Bible commentaries of Yūsuf ibn Nūḥ and Abū al-Faraj Hārūn, as preserved in the
Talkhῑṣ, see Goldstein, Pentateuch Exegesis, p. 214; eadem, Karaite Exegesis, pp.
152–153 (Eng.), p. 188 (Ar.). On the identification of al-mudawwin with Moses
in Yefet ben ʻEli’s Bible commentaries, see Ben-Shammai, “On Mudawwin”;
Goldstein, Karaite Exegesis, pp. 124, 136; Wechsler, Yefet ben ʻEli on Esther, p.
29.
 Marzena Zawanowska 9*

mudawwin of the Torah by Karaite interpreters of Scripture than the simple

identification of this figure with Moses.6 The deconstruction of the cliché
that a religious person has to believe that the entire Torah (with the possible
exception of the last eight verses of the Book of Deuteronomy) was written
by Moses, served as an inspiration for my own reflection and examination of
medieval Karaites’ perception of the identity of the mudawwin of the Torah.
I would like, therefore, to explore the relationship between Moses and the
“conglomerate term”7 mudawwin in light of the commentary on the Pentateuch
by one of the most prominent Karaite exegetes, Yefet ben ʻEli, with the aim
of reconstructing the exegete’s concept of the process of tadwīn (i.e., the
act of writing down, composing, recording, or compiling) of the Torah and
the identity of its mudawwin.8 In other words, I wish to address what seem
to be simple questions: Who, in Yefet’s opinion, wrote the Torah? Was it
Moses or someone else? Was it a one-stage process, an action performed
by a single, definite person (be it Moses or someone else), within a clearly
defined time period, or perhaps it involved many more personalities, active
during a much longer span of time? By the term “writing” I mean both the
mechanical act of writing down or copying something, and the creative act
of composing or fashioning as well as editing text.
As comparative sources, I will use other, earlier and contemporary, Karaite
commentaries on the Torah composed by Yaʻqūb al-Qirqisānī, Yūsuf ibn
Nūḥ (as preserved in an abridgement compiled by his pupil, Abū al-Faraj
Hārūn, and known as the Talkhῑṣ), and Sahl ben Maṣliaḥ. It is my belief
that only against such a broader backdrop of Karaite exegesis of the time,
is it possible to investigate, whether Yefet was innovative in his perception
of the process of committing the Pentateuch to writing and in the way he
determined its author, or perhaps his view on these matters merely reflected
generally accepted Karaite tenets.
I would now like to express my gratitude to the Center for the Study of
Judaeo-Arabic Literature and Culture of the Ben-Zvi Institute for the Studies
of Jewish Communities in the East, housed in The National Library of Israel
(formerly: the Jewish National and University Library) in Jerusalem, and
especially to Dr. David Sklare, for having given me an opportunity to study

6 See Polliack, “Karaite Conception of Mudawwin,” pp. pp. 362–363, 372; eadem,
“‘Voiceʼ of Characters,” pp. 903–904, 906, 913.
7 See eadem, “‘Voiceʼ of Characters,” p. 896.
8 For a detailed overview of scholarly research on Yefet, see Zawanowska, “Review
of Research.”
10* Was Moses the mudawwin of the Torah?

the “working editions” of many Karaite Bible commentaries compiled and

stored in the Center.
***
Medieval Karaite exegetes, just like their Rabbanite counterparts,
acknowledged the unparalleled position of Moses as “the greatest prophet
ever” (Deut 34:10),9 the only one to whom God communicated His revelation

9 The unique position of Moses among the prophets was emphasized by most
mediaeval Jewish philosophers and exegetes, beginning with Saadia Gaon, who
referred to Moses (along with Aaron and Miriam) as “our masters and crowns” (p.
295) and highlighted that, according to the Torah, “the Creator has never spoken to
anyone without an intermediary except to our teacher Moses alone” (p. 121). See
Saadia, Book of Beliefs, 8:2, 2:10. On al-Qirqisānī’s reappraisal of Saadia’s views
of the authorship of the Torah, see Nemoy (ed.), Code of Karaite Law, vol. 1,
chaps. 14–15, pp. 123–134. According to al-Qirqisānī, Saadia was of the opinion
that Moses wrote down the entire Torah by himself with the exception of the last
eight verses of Deuteronomy (i.e., Gen 1:1 – Deut 34:4). For the discussion of this
text, see Vajda, “Etudes sur Qirqisani” 107 (1946–47), pp. 89–90. For the study
of the Karaite perception of the unique character of Moses’ prophetic experience
(directness, “mouth-to-mouth”; intimacy in “conversation”; completeness, all-
embracing nature: “God revealed all the precepts to Moses”) and its role in
interreligious polemics, see Frank, Search Scripture Well, pp. 239–243, 245–247.
On five (or alternatively six) degrees of prophecy and the highest of them as
pertaining to Moses alone, as well as on Moses’ unparalleled position among the
prophets, according to Yefet ben ʻEli, see Ben-Shammai, Doctrines of Religious
Thought, vol. 1, pp. 268, 277; vol. 2, appendix 3/25, pp. 173–174 and appendix
4/27, pp. 232–233. Cf. with Frank, Search Scripture Well, p. 101, n. 29, p. 14, n.
57, p. 224, n. 74, p. 243, n. 148. On another classification of prophets proposed by
Yefet, see ibid., p. 240. The unparalleled position of Moses among all the prophets
is also confirmed by Maimonides, who made of this a pivotal point of his theory
of prophecy. In his Guide he explicitly states that “the prophecy of our Teacher
Moses was distinguished from that of other prophets” (p. 223), his mission was
“without a parallel in the history from Adam to Moses, or among the prophets
who came after him” (p. 231); therefore “the term prophet is applied to Moses and
other men homonymously” (p. 224). According to Maimonides, Moses was the
only prophet who received the direct revelation of the Law from God in the sight
of all Israel. Moreover, as opposed to other prophets, his revelation did not consist
of similes. In numerous instances he emphasized the unique character of Moses as
a prophet unlike any other; he was “the chief of the prophets” (pp. 188, 289, 317,
352), “the wisest of all men” (pp. 204, 245, 385, 397), who “rose to the highest
degree of prophecy” (pp. 221, 222, 231). See Maimonides, Guide for Perplexed.
In his introduction to Mishneh Torah Maimonides emphasizes that Moses wrote
down the entire Torah, including its last eight verses “before he died by his own
 Marzena Zawanowska 11*

directly, “mouth-to-mouth” (Num 12:8), without an intermediary (wāsiṭa).10

In the rabbinic tradition, this unique “face-to-face” divine revelation (Exod
33:11) was typically believed to have been faithfully written down almost
entirely (with the possible exception of the last eight verses of the Book of
Deuteronomy) and transmitted by Moses himself.11
At first sight it appears that the Karaites also attributed the writing
down of the entire Torah, including these last eight “problematic” verses,
to Moses. In the introduction to his commentary on the narrative parts of
the Pentateuch, entitled Kitāb al-Riyāḍ wa-al-Hadāʼiq (The Book of Parks
and Gardens), Yaʻqūb al-Qirqisānī enumerates 37 hermeneutic propositions
(funūn), and already in the first one he declares:

hand.” Yet, given the “problematic” nature of these last eight verses, their status
is different from the rest of the Pentateuch, in as much as there is no need for a
minyan to read them (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Prayer 13:6).
10 E.g., in his comment on Deut 34:10, Yefet expounds: ‫ולא קם נביא עוד בישראל כמשה‬
'‫אשר ידעו יהוה פנים אל פנים ולא יקום אי̇צא נבי פי אלישראל מ̇תל משה אל̇די נא̇גאה רב אלע‬
‫“( ו̇גה לו̇גה אי בגירה ואסטה‬And there hath not arisen a prophet since in Israel
like unto Moses, whom the LORD knew face-to-face: And there arose no
more prophet of God in Israel like Moses, with whom the Master of the Universe
spoke face-to-face, meaning without any intermediary.”) Subsequently, Yefet
states that Moses reached the highest, sixth degree of prophecy, which involves
revelation by means of the Holy Spirit. Moses shared this experience with other
prophets, however no other prophet had face-to-face communication with God
(‫( )ולאכן קד שארכתה אלאנביא פי מראתבה רוח קודש ולם תשארכה פי מרתבה פה אל פה‬Ms.
BL 275, fols. 157a–158a). For the discussion of this passage in the context of
interreligious polemics, see Frank, Search Scripture Well, p. 244. See also Yefet’s
comment on Deut 5:4, where he discusses the lack of an intermediary (‫בגיר‬
‫)ואסטה‬, while interpreting the meaning of the expressions “face-to-face” as direct
observation and “mouth-to-mouth” as direct conversation (Ms. SP IOS B369,
fols. 162a–163b). For Yefet’s explanation of the expression “mouth-to-mouth”
as signifying direct visual revelation (rafʻ al-wāsiṭa fī bāb al-naẓar), whereas
the term “face-to-face” signifies direct conversational revelation (rafʻ al-wāsiṭa fī
bāb al-mukhāṭaba), see his comment on Num 12:8 in Ben-Shammai, Doctrines
of Religious Thought, vol. 1, p. 269; vol. 2, appendix 3/26, pp. 174–175.
11 See b. Baba Batra 14b–15a; b. Makkot 11a, although the discussion in b. Baba
Batra 14b–15a concludes by attributing the writing down of the entire Torah
to Moses, with God dictating the text to him word by word. In contrast, in b.
Megillah 31a, Moses is given a certain degree of responsibility for fashioning
of the text of the Torah. For the discussion of variant answers supplied by the
rabbis to the unique question of scriptural authority and two competing models of
writing Scripture (i.e., inspirational versus empirical), see Sternberg, Poetics of
Biblical Narrative, pp. 58–83, esp. pp. 58–61.
12* Was Moses the mudawwin of the Torah?

We should know that our prophet and master Moses, may peace be
upon him, was the one who recorded (dawwana) this Torah from
the beginning of [the Book of] Genesis till its [= the Torah’s] end.12
This brief assertion bestows upon Moses the responsibility of having
committed the entire Torah to writing. By doing so, it undermines a widely
accepted rabbinic conviction that Moses could not possibly have written
the last eight verses of the book of Deuteronomy, which describe his own
passing and funeral.13

12 Al-Qirqisānī continues: “Moreover, [Moses] was the one who handed it over to
us, [including therein] all the reports that it contains, from the [time, when] God
created the universe, till the time of [Moses’] death, as [Scripture] says: And
Moses wrote this law (va-yikhtōḇ Mōshe et ha-Tōrā ha-zōʼt), etc. (Deut 31:9).
For this reason [the Torah] is called by [Moses’ name], and it is his Torah, as
[Scripture] says: according to that which is written in the law in the book of
Moses (kī ka-kātūḇ ba-Tōrā bĕ-sēfer Mōshe) (2 Chr 25:4), and also [as testified
by] the words of God, exalted be He, Remember ye the law of Moses My servant
(zikhrū Tōrat Mōshe ʻabdī) (Mal 3:22; per JPS, 1927: Mal 4:4). This is one of
the fundamental principles.” See Hirschfeld, Qirqisāni Studies, p. 23 (Eng.), p. 43
(Ar.). Cf. Nemoy, Karaite Anthology, p. 60. The translation is my own. Cf. also
Ben-Shammai, “On Mudawwin,” p. 89; Goldstein, Pentateuch Exegesis, p. 214;
eadem, Karaite Exegesis, p. 123; Polliack, “Karaite Conception of Mudawwin,”
p. 358. On al-Qirqisānī’s distinction between Moses as human narrator of the
Torah and God as its divine author, see Drory, Emergence of Literary Contacts,
pp. 114ff, and n. 14. Cf. also Astren, Karaite Judaism, pp. 231, 262. For more on
this introduction and al-Qirqisānī’s exegetical premises, see, e.g., Frank, Search
Scripture Well, p. 11.
13 See b. Baba Batra 14b–15a. Interestingly, the Talmud in this place quotes a longer
discussion among the rabbis which may testify to the initial lack of agreement
with respect to the authorship of last verses of the Pentateuch: “The Master has
said: Joshua wrote the book which bears his name and the last eight verses of
the Pentateuch. This statement is in agreement with the authority who says that
eight verses in the Torah were written by Joshua, as it has been taught: [It is
written], So Moses the servant of the Lord died there. Now is it possible that
Moses being dead could have written the words, ‘Moses died there’? The truth is,
however, that up to this point Moses wrote, from this point Joshua wrote. This is
the opinion of R. Judah, or, according to others, of R. Nehemiah. Said R. Simeon
to him: Can [we imagine the] scroll of the Law being short of one word, and is it
not written, Take this book of the Law? No; what we must say is that up to this
point the Holy One, blessed be He, dictated and Moses repeated and wrote, and
from this point God dictated and Moses wrote with tears, as it says of another
occasion, Then Baruch answered them, He pronounced all these words to me
with his mouth, and I wrote them with ink in the book.” Quoted from: The
 Marzena Zawanowska 13*

Prima facie, it appears that the opinion of al-Qirqisānī testifies to a more

widespread belief among the early Karaites. At the end of his commentary
on the Book of Deuteronomy, Yefet ben ʻEli not only undermines the above-
mentioned rabbinic view, but also enters into an open polemic against it in
the arguments he provides to support his opinion. He expounds:
We should explain, how it was possible for Moses, may peace be
upon him, to write [about himself in the past tense] So Moses the
servant of the LORD died there (Deut 34:5),14 being not dead [yet].
We will say that God, exalted be He, said to him: “Write: So Moses
[the servant of the LORD] died there (Deut 34:5)!” Thus, [in this
verse] Moses, may peace be upon him, does not report about himself
that he has already died, but rather he has [just] recorded it [= this
statement] (dawwana tadwīnan) following [God’s] instruction. As a
result, the Israelites present during the lifetime of Moses, may peace
be upon him, believed that Moses, may peace be upon him, would
die in the place, about which [God], exalted be He, had informed
[Moses], [when He said to him] and die in the mount [whither thou
goest up] (Deut 32:50), as well as that he would be buried there, and
that no one from the people [of Israel] would know the [exact] place,
where he would be buried. Similarly, [some people] say about Assaph’s
words: O God, the heathen are come into Thine inheritance, etc.
(Ps 79:1) They have set Thy sanctuary on fire, etc. (Ps 74:7), that
God, exalted be He, inspired him with that [knowledge of future
events], in order that he [could] pronounce it [= this prediction].
Hence, he [pronounced these verses] being informed [by God] about
what would happen, [just] as [God] informed [other prophets] about
the rest of future [events], many of them being expressed in past
tense, as it is said Thou hast been favourable unto Thy land, etc.
(Ps 85:1) and [others] alike. Therefore, in accordance with what we
have [just] mentioned, it is not surprising that God, exalted be He,
said to Moses: “Write from: So Moses [the servant of the LORD]
died there (Deut 34:5) [onward]!” and we need not say that [it was]
Joshua [who] wrote [this passage] down. Moreover, it is known that
the sofrim reckoned these [last eight] verses within all the verses
Jews’ College Translation of the Babylonian Talmud (London: Soncino Press,
1935–48).
14 All translations of citations from the Hebrew Bible are based on the English
translation of the Jewish Publication Society, 1917, with slight modifications
when necessary.
14* Was Moses the mudawwin of the Torah?

of the Torah. Hence, the one who thinks that Joshua, may peace be
upon him, wrote down these verses, [just] because of the statement,
So Moses [the servant of the LORD] died there (Deut 34:5), is
mistaken. Yet, [similarly thinking people] claim that David and the
ten prophets wrote down the Book of Psalms. It would be said to
[them]: “If, in your opinion, it was possible for David, may peace be
upon him, to write [the verse] O God, the heathen are come into
Thine inheritance, etc. (Ps 79:1), so why would it be impossible for
Moses, may peace be upon him, to write So Moses [the servant of
the LORD] died there (Deut 34:5)?” For it is clear that there is no
difference in meaning between [these] two [views] which they clung
to.15 Thus, it is proved that Moses, may peace be upon him, wrote
down (kataba) the [entire] Torah, to make [the teaching] (Tōrā)
great and glorious (Isa 42:21), [starting] from [the letter] “beth”
[in the phrase] In the beginning (bĕ-rēshīt) (Gen 1:1) till [the letter]
“lamed” [in the phrase] [and in all that mighty hand, and in all
the great terror, which Moses wrought] in the sight of all Israel
(lĕ-ʻēnē kōl Yisrāʼēl) (Deut 34:12), and transmitted [it] intact to the
Jewish nation,16 so that they inherit it [throughout] the generations
for the duration of time, as [Scripture] says Moses commanded us
a law, an inheritance of the congregation of Jacob (Deut 33:4).17

15 The very fact that here Yefet makes a comparison between the revelation received
by Moses and that received by David and the ten prophets is significant and hints
– in my opinion – at the possibility that, just as regards the Book of Psalms, Yefet
could have perceived the process of committing the divine revelation to writing
in the case of the Torah as well as a more complex process than he was ready to
overtly admit. See below n. 53.
16 For the meaning of the Ar. word ʼumma as “Jews,” see Blau, Dictionary of
Judaeo-Arabic, p. 19b.
17 ‫וי̇גב אן נביין כיף ̇גאז אן יכתב משה ע״ה וימת שם משה עבד יוי והו לם ימת פנקול אן א״ת קאל לה‬
‫אכתב וימת שם משה פליס משה ע״ה י̇כבר ען נפסה באנה קד מאת ואנמא דוון ̇דלך תדוינא״ וי̇גרי‬
‫̇דלך מ̇גרי אלאעלאם פי̇כר̇גו ישראל אלחא̇צרין פי חיו̈ה משה ע״ה יעתקדון אן משה ע״ה סימות פי‬
‫מו̇צע אל̇די קאל לה תע' ומת בהר ואנה סידפן ̇תם ואן לא יקף אחד מן אלנאס עלי אלמו̇צע אל̇די‬
‫דפן פיה ומ̇תל ה̇דא יקולון פי קול אסף אלהים באו גוים בנחלתך ו̇ג שלחו באש מקדשיך ו̇ג אן‬
‫א״ת לקנה ̇דלך חתי קאלה והו עלי טריק אלאעלאם במא יריד יכון כמא אעלמהם בסאיר אלעתידות‬
‫וכ̇תיר מנהא ת̇כר̇ג אלפא̇ט בלשון עבר כק̇ו רצית יוי ארציך וגו' ונ̇טראה פליס בעב̇ג אן יקול א״ת‬
‫למשה אכתב מן יומת שם משה עלי אלו̇גה אל̇די ̇דכרנאה וליס בנא חא̇גה אלי אן נקול אן יהושע‬
‫כתב מן וימת שם משה אלי לעיני כל ישראל ומן אלמעלום אן אלסופרים יעדו ה̇דה אלפסוקים פי‬
‫̇גמל̈ה פסוקים אלתורה פקד אבטל מן ̇טן אן ה̇דה אלפסוקים כתבהא יהושע ע״ה מן ̇גהה ק̇ו וימת‬
‫מם משה והם מע ̇דאך יקולו אן דוד ועשרה נביאים כתבו ספר תהילים פיקאל לה א̇דא ̇גאז ענדכם‬
‫אן יכתב דוד ע״ה אליהם באו גוים בנחלתיך לם לא ̇גאז אן יכתב משה ע״ה וימת שם משה וליס‬
 Marzena Zawanowska 15*

According to this lengthy deduction, Yefet discerned no impediment to

believe, on the purely theoretical level, that Moses had written down the
entire Torah on his own, including the last eight “problematic” verses.
The question remains, however, whether Yefet really believed that this
was true? And if he did, how did he conceive of Moses’ role in this literary
undertaking? In other words, what did it mean to him that “Moses wrote
down (kataba) the [entire] Torah”?18 Was he a writer, who took the liberty
of fashioning God’s revelation according to his own will and literary taste?
Or perhaps the exegete perceived him rather as a mere scribe, ordered by
God to write down exactly what had been dictated to him by the Creator, the
real and sole author of the entire Pentateuch? On certain occasions, Yefet
asserts that God Himself “said” or “stated” something in “His Book.” In
fact, he sometimes even makes God responsible for the redaction of the
Torah. For instance, in his comment on Genesis 39:20, our exegete states:
This story, as well as every story that resembles it, God recorded
(dawwana) in His Book and made them firmly established for eternity.
Moreover, He required from the [following] generations to remember
them [= these stories], so that they be His proof for them.19
The hypothesis of God’s authorship and Moses’ role as a passive medium in
transmitting God’s Scripture to humanity seems to be further corroborated by
statements, frequent in medieval Karaite commentaries on the Pentateuch,
asserting that God “said,” “included” or “recorded” something in His Book,
or that “God ordered us through Moses” to do certain things and prohibited

]‫פרק בינהמא פי אלמעני אל̇די יתעלקו בה וה̇דא וא̇צח פקד ̇תבת אן משה ע״ה כתב אלתורה יג'[דיל‬
‫[תורה] ויא'[דיר] מן בי בראשית אלי למאד לעיני כל ישראל וסלמהא אלי אלאמה ליתואר̇תוהא‬
‫( א̇גיאלהם עלי מר אלזמאן כמא קאל תורה צוה לנו משה מורשה קהלת יעקב‬Ms. SP IOS
CO72, fols. 159a–b).
18 On the difference between the verbs “to write” or “to copy” (kataba) and “to
record” or “to fashion” (dawwana), in the sense of the prophetʼs copying (kataba)
of a “revelational Urtext given to him by God” and subsequently, fashioning it
(dawwana) under divine inspiration “into canonical text,” see Wechsler, Yefet ben
ʻEli on Esther, p. 30, n. 65.
19 ‫פה̇דה אלקצה וכל קצה תשבההא דונהא אללה פי כתאבה ו̇געלהא ̇תאבתה לאלדהר ואלזם אלא̇גיאל‬
‫( ת̇דכרהם לתכון ח̇גה לה עליהם‬Ms. SP IOS B217, fols. 119a–b). Cf. Polliack, “Karaite
Conception of Mudawwin,” pp. 355–356; eadem, “‘Voiceʼ of Characters,” p. 901.
On Scripture’s identification of God as one of the figures engaged in writing the
Pentateuch, see, e.g., Exod 34:1.
16* Was Moses the mudawwin of the Torah?

others.20 For example in the introduction to the aforementioned commentary

on the narrative parts of the Pentateuch, Yaʻqūb al-Qirqisānī declares:
We wish to undertake the explanation of the Book of our Creator,
may His praise be great, which he revealed through Moses, may
peace be upon him, I mean the Torah.21
It could be assumed, therefore, that according to medieval Karaite exegetes,
Yefet among them, Moses wrote down the entire Torah at God’s bidding,
following His exact instructions. Hence, it would seem that Moses served
as a mere scribe, a copyist, or a passive medium of transmission, in the
sense of an executor of the divine will who faithfully recorded in writing the
words of God, the one and only originator and the real author of the Torah.22
Yet, not all the passages in Yefet’s commentaries on the Torah seem to
be so clear-cut and conclusive with regard to Moses’ role in the process
of writing down the Torah. On the contrary, very often the exegete limits
himself to a statement that Moses “wrote down” the Torah (or that an
anonymous mudawwin recorded it) without asserting that God dictated it to
His prophet. This leaves the door open to assuming that Moses could have
had at least a tiny share in the fashioning of the Pentateuch, and accordingly
in its authorship as well. For instance while commenting on Deuteronomy
31:24, Yefet laconically acknowledges:
The statement [And it came to pass, when Moses had made an
end of writing the words of this law in a book], until they were
finished, is a clear indication that [Moses] wrote down (kataba) the
entire Torah.23

20 Similar statements referring to Moses as a medium through which God reveals His
will to humanity already appear in the Torah. See, e.g., Lev 27:34; Num 36:13. Cf.
al-Qirqisānī’s statements: ‫“( אמרנא אללה עלי יד משה‬God commended us through
Moses”) (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab I 4529, fol. 42b); ‫אלי אן ̇גא משה פחרמה אללה עלי ידה‬
(“until Moses came, and God forbade it through him”) (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab I
4529, fol. 49a, and similarly fol. 49b). Similarly, Sahl ben Maṣliaḥ ascertains that
“the Book was revealed through our mater, Moses, may peace be upon him” (‫סידנא‬
‫( )משה על׳ אלס׳ אל̇די עלי ידה אנזל ספר‬Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab I 3308, fol. 4b).
21 See Hirschfeld, Qirqisāni Studies, p. 11 (Eng.), p. 39 (Ar.). Cf. Nemoy, Karaite
Anthology, p. 52. Cf. also Polliack, “Karaite Conception of Mudawwin,” p. 358.
The translation is my own.
22 For the examples from the Talkhῑṣ of Moses being ordered by God to record
something in the Torah, see Goldstein, Pentateuch Exegesis, p. 214; eadem,
Karaite Exegesis, pp. 152–153 (Eng.), p. 188 (Ar.).
23 ‫( קולה עד תמם פה̇דא דליל וא̇צח אנה כתב אלתורה ב̇גלתהא‬Ms. SP IOS CO72, fol. 115a).
 Marzena Zawanowska 17*

Whereas his comment on Deuteronomy 34:4 reads:

We will say that the Master of the Universe, may His name be
blessed, commanded our prophet Moses, may peace be upon him,
to write down this Law (bi-kitābat hadhihi al-sharīʻa), as it is said
Moses commanded us a law (Tōrā) (Deut 33:4), and he made it
an inheritance which he transmitted to the congregation of Jacob
(Deut 33:4).24
Thus we may deduce that God commanded Moses to write down (kataba)
the Torah. Nonetheless, it is by no means obvious whether God told Moses
exactly what to write down, word by word, or just transmitted to His prophet
the main idea, whereas the wording and fashioning of the text was done
by Moses.25
Moreover, if Yefet believed that God dictated the Torah to Moses word
by word, then why would the exegete differentiate between the words or
“voice” of God and the words or “voice” of Moses, all verses being the
words of God faithfully recorded by His prophet?26 In his commentary on
Genesis 3:23, Yefet says:
The words, And the LORD God said (Gen 3:22) are those of the
narrator (or storyteller) (al-muḥkī),27 Moses, may peace be upon

24 '‫פנקול אן רב אלעאלמין תבארך אסמה אמר נבינא משה ע׳ אלס׳ בכתאבה ה̇דה אלשריעה כקו‬
‫( תורה צוה לנו משה ו̇געלהא מירא̇ת ותואר̇תיהא קהלת יעקב‬Ms. SP IOS CO72, fol. 167b).
25 For similar ideas expressed by al-Qirqisānī, see Ben-Shammai, “On Mudawwin,”
p. 10.
26 For a discussion of this subject in Yefet’s Bible commentaries, see Polliack,
“Karaite Conception of Mudawwin”; eadem, “‘Voiceʼ of Characters.” For
examples of the differentiation made by the Talkhῑṣ between the speech of God
and the words of al-mudawwin, see Goldstein, Pentateuch Exegesis, pp. 205–206;
eadem, Karaite Exegesis, p. 128 (Eng.), p. 194 (Ar.).
27 Following the precedents set by previous research on the topic, throughout
this article, to render the Arabic word al-muḥkī, faut de mieux, I am making a
somewhat anachronistic use of the English terms “narrator” and/or “storyteller.”
To be sure, these concepts, as conceived of and employed by modern literary
criticism, were alien to medieval commentators, even if they may have implicitly
recognized some of the literary functions that these devices perform in literary
analysis. For the use of these terms in recent scholarship to denote the same or
similar Arabic words and concepts, see, e.g., Goldstein, Pentateuch Exegesis,
p. 218; eadem, Karaite Exegesis, p. 126 (Eng.), p. 186 (Ar.); Polliack, “Karaite
Conception of Mudawwin”; eadem, “‘Voiceʼ of Characters.” For the Arabic
term al-muḥkī as denoting the “transmitter” (‫ )מוסר‬of the divine message, see
Ben-Shammai, “On Mudawwin,” pp. 80, 84–85. On Yefet’s perception of the
18* Was Moses the mudawwin of the Torah?

him, [who] reports to us the words of God, just like he has reported
to us [other] of God’s utterances [starting] from And God said:
‘Let there be light’ (Gen 1:3) till this verse, which are [altogether]
eighteen utterances of God.28
Here Yefet not only clarifies the distinction between the voice of God
and that of Moses, but also explicitly designates Moses as the narrator
(or storyteller) (al-muḥkī), who only quotes God’s exact words sparingly,
interweaving them in the reported story, which he has surely also learned
from God, but apparently in broad outline alone.29

mudawwin as the “transmitter” (rāwī) of divine revelation, who merely relates

the words of God (marwī ʻan Allāh), see his comment on Deut 32:3 in Sokolow,
Yefet ben Ali on Deuteronomy, p. 27.
28 Yefet continues: “Nine of them are related to the Creation, and they are: Let
there be light (Gen 1:3), Let there be a firmament (Gen 1:6), Let the waters
[…] be gathered together (Gen 1:9), Let the earth put forth grass (Gen 1:11),
Let there be lights (Gen 1:14), Let the waters swarm with swarms (Gen 1:20),
Let the earth bring forth (Gen 1:24), Let us make man (Gen 1:26), It is not
good that the man should be alone (Gen 2:18); one of them [God directed] to
the snake [= Gen 3:14–15, starting from: Because thou hast done this]; two [of
them He pronounced] to Eve [= Gen 3:13, 16]; two of them [He said] to Adam
and Eve, and they are: and God said unto them: Be fruitful, and multiply (Gen
1:28), And God said, Behold, I have given you every [herb yielding seed […],
and every tree […] – to you it shall be for food] (Gen 1:29); four of them [God
directed] to Adam alone, and they are: and said unto him: Where art thou?
(Gen 3:9), [And He said]: Who told thee that [thou wast naked?] (Gen 3:11),
[And unto Adam he said]: Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy
wife (Gen 3:17), And the LORD God commanded the man, saying: [Of every
tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat] (Gen 2:16). As for Behold, the man
is become [as one of us] (Gen 3:22), it is possible that it is also a statement [said]
to Adam, but it is [equally] possible that they are words of wisdom [just] like
the rest of [passages opening with the words] and God said (va-yōmer elōhīm)
pronounced during the Creation.” (‫קולה ויאמר י"י אלהים הו קול אלמחכי מוסי על׳ אלסל׳‬
‫יחכי לנא קול אללה כמא אחכי לנא קול אללה מן ויאמר אלהים יהי אור אלי ה̇דא אלאפסוק והו‬
‫י׳ ח׳ קול אללה מנהא ט׳ פי באב אל̇כליקה והי יהי אור יהי רקיע יקוו המים ותדשא הארץ יהי‬
‫מארות ישרצו המים תוצא הארץ נעשה אדם לא טוב היות האדם ומנהא ואחד לאלנחש וב׳ לחוה‬
‫ב׳ מנהא לאדם וחוה והמא ויאמר להם אלהים פרו ורבו ויאמר אלהים הנה נתתי לכם את כל ד׳‬
‫מנהא לאדם וחדה והי ויאמר לו איכה מי הגיד לך כי שמעת לקול אשתך ויצו י"י אלהים על האדם‬
‫לאמר ואמא הן האדם היה פיחתמל אנה קול לאדם אי̇צא ויחתמל אנה קול פי אלחכמה מ̇תל סאיר‬
‫( )ויאמר אלהים אלמקול פי אל̇כליקה‬Ms. SP IOS B051, fols. 171a–b).
29 For another example of Moses fulfilling the function of the narrator (or storyteller),
who reports to us what he has heard from God, see, e.g., Yefet’s comment on Gen
8:20, where he contends: ‫“( ה̇דה חכאיה משה ע׳ אלס׳‬This is a story reported by
 Marzena Zawanowska 19*

Furthermore, according to Yefet, in the entire Creation story there are

only eighteen utterances pronounced by God, the rest evidently being the
words of Moses. It may be assumed, therefore, that Moses, having been
commanded by God to write down the Pentateuch, was not instructed
concerning its exact wording, but rather wrote it down of his own accord,
only from time to time having recourse to God’s words and quoting His
exact utterances.
Yefet’s younger colleague from the Jerusalem school,30 Sahl ben Maṣliaḥ,
also distinguishes the voice of Moses in the Torah as a narrator or storyteller of
the written account who reports past events to the Israelites. In his commentary
on Genesis 2:5, he states:
This is a story reported by Moses (ḥikāyat Moshe), may peace be
upon him, telling the Israelites that every tree of the field that they
[could] see on the earth and every herb of the field that they [could]
observe, had not been beforehand on the earth.31
Both quotations attest to the exegetes’ awareness of the existence of more
than one voice – the divine – in the biblical account. Although the information
about past events undoubtedly comes to Moses from God, the wording or
phrasing of the reported account seems to be attributed by medieval Karaite
interpreters of Scripture to His prophet.
Yefet’s comment on Genesis 1:8 may be adduced as another proof-text of
such a dual (heavenly-earthly) authorship of the Torah, whereby divine and
human voices are inextricably interwoven in the narrated story. He expounds:

Moses [ḥikāyat Moshe], may peace be upon him.”) (Ms. SP IOS B222, fol. 37a).
30 On this “school,” “academy” or “college,” its activities and members, see
Margoliouth, “Ibn Al-Hiti’s Chronicle,” and also Frank, Search Scripture Well,
pp. 1–32; Gil, Palestine 634–1099, pp. 789 [925]; Mann, Texts and Studies,
pp. 32–33; Polliack, Karaite Tradition of Translation, pp. 37–64; Poznański,
“Karaite Opponents of Saadia” 18 (1906), pp. 209–250; Skoss, Ali ben Suleiman
on Genesis. On different names and functions of this Karaite “house of study”
(“school,” “meeting place” [majlis], “library,” “courtyard”), see Goldstein,
Pentateuch Exegesis, pp. 13–16; eadem, Karaite Exegesis, pp. 13–14.
31 ‫ה̇דא הו חכאיה משה ע׳ אלס׳ יקול לישראל אן כל ש̇גר ה̇דה אלצחרא אל̇די תשאהדוה פי אלאר̇ץ‬
‫( וכל עשב אלצחרא אל̇די הו̇דא תנ̇טרוה פאנה מן קבל ה̇דא לם יכון פי אלאר̇ץ‬Ms. RNL Yevr.-
Arab. I 4760, fol. 32a). Another example of Sahl singling out the voice of the
narrator in the biblical account can be adduced from his comment on Gen 2:9:
‫“( וקולה נחמד למראה וטוב למאכל ערף אן ה̇דא קול אלמחכי‬The statement [And out
of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is] pleasant to
the sight, and good for food [Gen 2:9] informs [us] that these are words of the
storyteller [al-muḥkī].”) (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4760, fol. 37b).
20* Was Moses the mudawwin of the Torah?

The words And God made the firmament (Gen 1:7) constitute a
statement by the mudawwin, may peace be upon him, whereas [the
expression] Let there be a firmament [in the midst of the waters,
and let it divide the waters from the waters.] (Gen 1:6) and the rest
of the verse are the words of God, exalted be He. Similarly, [in] the
previous passage, only four words are pronounced by God, exalted
be He, Let there be light (yĕhī ōr) (Gen 1:3), Day [and] Night (yōm,
lāylā) (Gen 1:5), whereas the rest of the chapter is a story reported
by the mudawwin (ḥikāyat al-mudawwin), may peace be upon him.32
Here Yefet again singles out the words of God, but this time he does not
even mention Moses, attributing the rest of the account to an anonymous
mudawwin.33
Likewise, Sahl ben Maṣliaḥ distinguishes the voice of God from the
voice of an anonymous mudawwin in the biblical account. In his comment
on Genesis 2:5 he contends:
This verse is a story reported by the mudawwin (ḥikāya min al-
mudawwin), telling [us] that God caused a deep sleep to fall upon
Adam, and when he fell asleep, [God] took one of his ribs and closed
the flesh in this place.34
Furthermore, even if we assume pro tempore that the mudawwin is
identified with Moses, this figure, “the greatest prophet ever,” who relates
to us what he has heard from God, was, according to the Karaite exegetes,
selective in writing down what God told him. When commenting on Genesis
2:17, Yefet states that Adam knew many commandments, but Moses mentioned
only one of them, namely the one which was specific to Adam, the one
against which he transgressed and for which was expelled from Paradise.
The exegete concludes:

32 ‫וקו׳ ויעש אלהים את הרקיע הו קול אלמדוון ע״ה א̇דא יהי רקיע ותמאם אלפסוק הו קול א״ת‬
‫וכ̇דאך אלפצל אלאול פיה ד׳ אלפא̇ט פקט הי קול א״ת יהי אור יום לילה ובאקי אלפצל הו חכאיה‬
‫( אלמדוון ע״ה‬Ms. SP IOS CO51, fol. 21a).
33 Another example of Yefet distinguishing different “voices” in the Torah may be
found in his comment on Gen 10:6–20. While interpreting this biblical passages,
he singles out verse nine, which – in his opinion – contains a kind of parenthetic
remark made by Moses (qawl Moshe) (Ms. SP IOS B222, fol. 61a). On different
voices discerned by Yefet in the Bible, see especially Polliack, “‘Voiceʼ of
Characters.”
34 ‫ה̇דא אלפסוק הו חכאיה מן אלמדון יקול אן אללה אוקע אלסבאת עלי אדם פוסן וא̇כ̇ד ואחדה מן‬
‫( א̇צלאעה וסד לחם פי מכאנהא‬Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4760, fol. 22a). Cf. Polliack,
“‘Voiceʼ of Characters,” p. 900 n. 17.
 Marzena Zawanowska 21*

Moses recorded (dawwana) for us this commandment from among

all the commandments, which had been [imposed] upon Adam.35
Thus it appears that God had informed Moses about past events,36 the Creation,
and the stories of the forefathers in detail, including the commandments
given to them, but Moses decided on his own, what to include in the Torah,
and what to omit, as well as how to fashion the text. It is interesting to
juxtapose this statement by Yefet with the opinion of his contemporary
exegetes (Yūsuf Ibn Nūḥ and Abū al-Faraj Hārūn), as preserved in the Talkhῑṣ.
While commenting on the two promulgations of the Ten Commandments,
the authors ponder the questions of why they were actually proclaimed
twice (Exod 20, Deut 5) and why these two renderings are different. Of
three possibilities raised by the Talkhῑṣ, in the last one, Moses included the
second “version” of the Ten Commandments of his own accord in order to
clarify the first one. The exegetes assert:
It is also said that they [= the children of Israel] were addressed
only once. But the prophet mentioned [the Ten Commandments]
for the second time unto the plains of Moab (Num 31:12), in order
to elucidate the statements, which were abbreviated in recording
(al-kalim al-mukhtaṣira fī al-tadwīn),37 and the words [that were]
added or omitted [in the first rendition of the Ten Commandments].38

35 ‫( דוון לנא משה ה̇דא אלפר̇ץ מן ̇גמלה אלפרו̇ץ אלתי כאנת עלי אדם‬Ms. SP IOS CO51, fol.
126a). For examples from the Talkhῑṣ of Moses adding something in the Torah of
his own accord, see Goldstein, Pentateuch Exegesis, p. 215 (ad Gen 2:24); eadem,
Karaite Exegesis, p. 128 (Eng.), p. 194 (Ar.) (ad Exod 14:19–20).
36 E.g., Yefet’s comment on Gen 4:1 reads: ‫פקאל מוסי עלי' אלסל' ען אעלאם אללה לה אן‬
‫“( אדם ענד מא ̇כר̇ג מן אל̇גנאן ערף חוה אשתו‬Moses, may peace be upon him, says that
he was informed by God that when Adam had left Paradise, he knew Eve, his wife
[Gen 4:1].”) (Ms. SP IOS CO51, fol. 177b).
37 The concept of abbreviation, omission, elision, or ellipsis (ikhtiṣār) corresponds
with the ninth principle of thirty-two principles (midot) of R. Eliezer ben R.
Yose ha-Gelili. In the Middle Ages it was included in forty-nine principles of R.
Shemuel ben Hofni and was particularly developed by the Muslim exegetes of the
Koran. For the use of this concept in Yefet’s Bible commentaries, see Polliack,
“Karaite Conception of Mudawwin”; eadem, “‘Voiceʼ of Characters”; Polliack
& Schlossberg, “Methods of Interpretation,” pp. 33–34. See also Wechsler, Yefet
ben ʻEli on Esther, pp. 32–34. For the use of this concept in the Talkhῑṣ, see
Goldstein, Pentateuch Exegesis, p. 220; eadem, Karaite Exegesis, p. 137 (Eng.),
pp. 197–198 (Ar.).
38 ‫וקיל לם י̇כאטבו אלא בואחדה ואנמא ̇דכר אלרסול אל̇תאניה פי ערבות מואב ליבין אלכלם‬
‫( אלמ̇כתצרה פי אלתדוין ואלחרוף אלזאידה ואלנאקצה‬Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4785,
22* Was Moses the mudawwin of the Torah?

Although these Karaite exegetes do not find the last possibility to be the
most probable, the mere fact that they quote it in this context testifies to
their perception of this explanation as fairly admissible.39 Accordingly, just
like Yefet, the authors of the Talkhῑṣ also seem disposed to agree that Moses
was far from being a mere scribe, or a passive medium of divine revelation,
and might easily be considered a human co-author of the Torah, not only
formulating in his own words what he heard from God, but also and of his
own accord omitting and adding entire passages to the Holy Text.
Yet this raises another problem: was Moses indeed the only mortal
scribe-recorder or author-redactor of the Pentateuch? In his comment on
Deuteronomy 31:19, Yefet points to two possible writers or copyists, namely
Moses and Joshua. He explains:
It is possible that the statement Now therefore write ye (vĕ-ʻatā
kitḇū lākhem) this song for you, [and teach thou it the children
of Israel] (Deut 31:19) [in plural] points out Moses and Joshua, but
the teaching and the instruction came from Moses, as it is said and

teach thou it (vĕ-lammĕdāh) the children of Israel (Deut 31:19)

[in singular].40
Hence, although Moses undoubtedly enjoyed a privileged position with God,
being directly inspired by the Creator, he was not necessarily the only person
who committed the received information, be it stories or commandments,
to writing. In his commentary on another passage of Deuteronomy 31
(verse 22), Yefet explicitly confirms his conviction concerning Joshua’s
participation in the process of writing down the Torah:
When [Scripture] has finished informing [us] what would happen
to the people [of Israel] which is the lesson41 of this Song [= the

fol. 238a). Cf. Goldstein, Pentateuch Exegesis, pp. 219–221; eadem, Karaite
Exegesis, p. 137 (Eng.), pp. 197–198 (Ar.). The translation is my own.
39 Cf. with Yefet’s comment on Deut 34:1–3: ‫ואעלם אן האהנא כלאם מ̇צמר קאלה אללה‬
‫“( תע׳ למשה א̇כתצר תדוינה האהנא ושרחה פי משנה תורה והו קול ועשית לך ארון עץ‬Know
that the speech [of God] is elliptical here, [for] God, exalted be He, told Moses to
abbreviate its recording here and explain it [in detail] in the Book of Deuteronomy
[Mishneh Torah], when He said and make thee an ark of wood [Deut 10:1].”)
(Ms. SP IOS B220, fol. 161a).
40 ‫וקו׳ כתבו לכם יחתמל אן ישיר בה אלי משה ויהושע ואלתעלים ואלתלקין יכון מן משה כמא קאל‬
‫( ולמדה את בני ישראל‬Ms. SP IOS CO72, fols. 112a–b).
41 For the meaning of the Ar. word fāʼida as “instructive remark,” see Blau,
Dictionary of Judaeo-Arabic, p. 520b.
 Marzena Zawanowska 23*

Song of Moses], it mentions Moses’ obedient fulfillment of [God’s]

order, as it is said, So Moses wrote [this song] (Deut 31:22). Yet,
[beforehand] [God] commanded: Now therefore write ye (vĕ-ʻatā
kitḇū lākhem) [this song for you] [in plural] (Deut 31:19), whereas
here [Scripture] says So [Moses] wrote (va-yikhtōḇ) [this song]
[in singular]. This refers to an unambiguous principle that Joshua
participated in the writing of this Song.42
As if this was not enough, in a different place Yefet allows for the possibility
that there were even more “writers” of the Law than these two. In his
comment on Deuteronomy 31:9 the exegete expounds:
The statement: And Moses wrote [this law] (va-yikhtōḇ Mōshe et
ha-Tōrā ha-zōʼt) (Deut 31:9) informs us that Moses, may peace be
upon him, wrote down the Torah (kataba al-Torah) [starting] from
[the letter] “beth” [in the phrase] In the beginning (bĕ-rēʼshīt) (Gen
1:1) till [the letter] “lamed” [in the phrase] in the sight of all Israel
(lĕ-ʻēnē kōl Yisrāʼēl) (Deut 34:12). The majority of scholars say
that he wrote it down by his own hand, but some of them say that
he summoned experienced [= professional] scribes and dictated to
them, so that they write it down in his presence.43
It appears, therefore, that, in Yefet’s opinion, though God communicated
directly with Moses, he did not necessarily write down what he was told in
his own hand, conceivably commissioning professional scribes to whom he
dictated the Torah (or at least instructed as to the manner of its composition,
as he had Joshua, according to the previously quoted statement). Thus the
chain of transmission of God’s revelation becomes longer and begins to
resemble the children’s “telephone game.” God says something to Moses,
who repeats it, possibly in a selective way and maybe also in his own words,
to Joshua or “experienced scribes,” who, we can only assume, do their best
to write down exactly what Moses dictates to them.

42 ‫למא אנתהא מן תעריפה מא יכון מן אלקום והו פאידה ה̇דה אלשירה ̇דכר אמת̇תאל משה ̇דלך כמ׳‬
‫ק׳ ויכתב משה וקאל פי אלאמר ועתה כתבו לכם וקאל האהנא ויכתב ה̇דא מרדוד אלי אלאצל‬
‫( אלמחכם והו אן יהושע כאן ישארכה פי כתאבה ה̇דה אלשירה‬Ms. SP IOS CO72, fol. 114a).
43 ‫קולה ויכתב משה ערפנו אן משה כתב אלתורה מן בא בראשית אלי לעיני כל ישראל פאכ̇תר‬
‫אלעלמא יקולון אנה כתבהא בידה וקום מנהם יקולון אח̇צר סופרים מהורים ואמלא עליהם חתי‬
‫( כתבוהא בח̇צרתה‬Ms. SP IOS CO72, fol. 105a). Cf. Polliack, “Karaite Conception
of Mudawwin,” p. 360; eadem, “‘Voiceʼ of Characters,” p. 902. I would like to
express my gratitude to Prof. Mordechai Akiva Friedman for having suggested
certain corrections to my translation of this passage.
24* Was Moses the mudawwin of the Torah?

Yet, the question may be asked: did Yefet truly believe that Joshua or
these professional copyists succeeded in recording exactly, what Moses
told them? Or perhaps Joshua or these commissioned scribes, whoever they
may have been, also took the liberty of selecting, arranging, and editing
the received information? Or maybe another person was involved in the
process of shaping the heavenly revelation into the earthly book, and thus
responsible for the final edition of the text?
There is no clear answer to these questions, but we find a hint in Yefet’s
comment on Genesis 9:4, where first of all, he seems to differentiate between
Moses and the person who recorded the Torah. Secondly, he seems to have
believed that whoever this person was, he apparently decided on his own
what to include in the Torah and what to omit. While pondering the question
of whether the forefathers knew the “dietary laws” about permitted and
prohibited foods (ḥalāl and ḥarām), Yefet quotes the opinions of other
sages and concludes with the one that he regards as the most probable
interpretation. He explains:
Some people say that similar things [= the consumption of the flesh
of animals], were permissible to Adam, though [the mudawwin] did
not record it (ikhtaṣara tadwīnahu) there [= in the account about
Adam], but recorded it here [= in the account about Noah]. Similarly,
[the mudawwin] recorded [the phrase] told to Moses (alladhī khūṭiba
bihi Moshe): These are the beasts which ye may eat (Deut 14:4),
but abbreviated [and did not] record [the fact] that Adam and Noah
knew [the distinction of] the permissible from the prohibited. This
is the most likely [interpretation].44
Although in this comment Yefet does not explicitly mention the mudawwin,
he clearly distinguishes between Moses and the anonymous “he” who
recorded or omitted God’s words directed to the prophet, that is, he decided
on his own what to include in the Torah.

44 ‫וקאל קום אנה כאן מבאח לאדם מ̇תל ̇דלך וא̇כתצר תדוינה הנאך ואנמא דוון ה̇̇דא ההנא נ̇טיר מא‬
‫דוון זאת הבהמה אשר תאכלו אל̇די ̇כוטב בה משה וא̇כתצר אן תדוון מערפה אלחלאל ואלחראם‬
‫( לאדם או לנח והו אלאקרב‬Ms. SP IOS B222, fol. 42a). According to this comment,
Yefet is inclined to think that Adam and Noah knew the distinction between
permissible and prohibited animals, as it seems to be suggested by the biblical text
itself (e.g., Gen 7:2). In the rabbinic tradition, the predominant view holds that
Adam had been forbidden to eat the meat of animals, permission to do otherwise
having been granted only to Noah. See, e.g., b. Sanhedrin 59b. I am thankful to
the reviewer of this article for bringing these sources to my attention.
 Marzena Zawanowska 25*

In Yefet’s commentary on Exodus 11:3 we find a further proof-text

indicating that the exegete did not perceive Moses as the “editor-in-chief”
of the Torah, and that whoever compiled the final version of the Pentateuch,
whether Joshua, or scribes commissioned by Moses, or a totally different
person, who collected and edited the previously recorded reports, did not play
merely a passive role in transmitting God’s revelation mediated by Moses:
I am inclined to think that [the verse] And thou shalt say unto
Pharaoh: Thus saith the LORD, Israel is My son, My first-born
(Exod 4:22) and the passage [commencing] with Thus saith the
LORD: About midnight [will I go out into the midst of Egypt]
(Exod 11:4), till And all these thy servants shall come down unto
me (Exod 11:8) God had said to [Moses], before [He ordered him]
Speak now in the ears of the people (Exod 11:2). But when the
mudawwin abbreviated (ikhtaṣara) God’s words [directed] to Moses
About midnight will I go out [into the midst of Egypt] (Exod
11:4), he put [the verse] Speak now [in the ears of the people]
(Exod 11:2) after [the verse] he shall surely thrust you out [hence
altogether] (Exod 11:1).45
Thus Yefet seems to be making a clear distinction here between as many
as three independent entities involved in the process of producing the book
called the Torah. [1.] The first is God, the divine author, who fulfills the
function of the originator of Scripture and speaks to Moses. [2.] The second
is Moses, who we know from previous citations as the authorial narrator or
storyteller that related (either in his own words or by quoting God’s words
verbatim) the reports he heard from the Creator. As may be inferred from the
above quotations, he is also concerned with the transmission of the divine
message by ensuring that it is committed to writing. Moreover, from the
above we can see that it is by no means obvious who, in the exegete’s opinion,
actually recorded the Pentateuch: Moses himself, Joshua, professional scribes,
or perhaps somebody else? [3.] The third and last individual whom Yefet
distinguishes in this passage as being responsible for preparing and shaping
the final version of the entire text is the compiler-editor (al-mudawwin)
“in chief,” who took the liberty of changing, arranging, and abbreviating
Scripture, including the words of God directed to Moses.

45 ‫ויקרב פי נפסי אן ואמרת אל פרעה כה אמר י"י אלהי ישראל בני בכורי [ישראל] ופצל כה אמר י"י‬
‫כחצות הלילה אלי וירדו כל עבדיך אלה אלי וג׳ קאלה אללה לה קבל דבר נא באזני העם ואנמא‬
‫למא א̇כתצר אלמדוון קול אללה למשה כחצות הלילה אני יוצא ̇געל דבר נא בעקב גרש יגרש‬
(Ms. SP IOS B219, fol. 18a). Cf. Erder, “Moral Issues,” pp. 321–322.
26* Was Moses the mudawwin of the Torah?

An additional example of Yefet’s distinguishing between Moses and the

anonymous mudawwin may be found in the exegete’s comment on Exodus
3:2, where he expounds:
Know that the mudawwin said: And the angel of the LORD appeared
unto him [in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush] (Exod
3:2) and reported about Moses: he looked, and, behold, the bush
burned with fire, [and the bush was not consumed] (Exod 3:2).46
It may be conjectured that if Yefet had believed that Moses was the final
mudawwin of Scripture, who was reporting in this case something about
himself, the exegete would have phrased this sentence: “know that the
mudawwin […] reported about himself.” This can be seen in other instances
in Yefet’s commentary on the Pentateuch, where he states that Moses says
or said something about himself” (qawl/qāl/yaqūl Moshe ʻan nafsihi).47
In light of the above, it is my contention that in Yefet’s view, not all
of the Torah was written down by Moses, neither in the sense of mere
recording nor even in the sense of providing a loose report of the words of
God. Furthermore, either the person commissioned by Moses to commit
Scripture to writing or someone who came afterwards with a view to editing
the previously accumulated records and compiling them into a book had
taken the liberty of changing, arranging, and abbreviating the text. In other
words, Yefet inferred that this person, of his own volition, consciously and
purposely subjected the text to a process of literary shaping and fashioned
Scripture according to his own wishes and tastes.48
In Karaite commentaries all of the distinct individuals involved in
the making of the Pentateuch, namely the author, narrator or storyteller,
scribe or recorder, compiler or editor, were often designated by one Arabic

46 ‫( ואעלם אן אלמדוון קאל וירא מלאך י"י וא̇כבר ען משה וירא והנה הסנה בער באש‬Ms. SP IOS
B218, fol. 155a). Cf. Ben-Shammai, “On Mudawwin,” p. 25.
47 ‫קול משה ען נפסה‬/‫קאל‬/‫יקול‬. See, e.g., Yefet’s commentary on Gen 1:26 (Ms. SP
IOS 051, fols. 71b–72a). For an argument that, in Yefet’s view, in this and other
similar places Moses, the mudawwin, speaks about himself in third person, see
Ben-Shammai, “On Mudawwin,” p. 94; Goldstein, Karaite Exegesis, p. 134. On
this habit as common also among other exegetes, see ibid., pp. 42, 43.
48 I should like to emphasize that by stating that the mudawwin (other than Moses)
“of his own volition, consciously and purposely subjected the text to a process of
literary shaping and fashioned Scripture according to his own wishes and tastes,”
I am not excluding the possibility that – in Yefet’s view – he did so under some
kind of divine inspiration, on which subject I develop in the following part of this
article.
 Marzena Zawanowska 27*

“umbrella” term, al-mudawwin. Indeed, the use of this term may have served
as a convenient “camouflage” circumventing the religiously inconvenient
question of biblical authorship, in the sense of both committing the revelation
to writing or recording, and shaping or editing the text.49 (It should be noted
that a similar function can also be fulfilled by the elusive term Scripture
[al-kitāb], since its use also enables the Bible exegete to avoid providing
a definite answer to the above-mentioned “problematic” questions).50 At

49 On the term al-mudawwin serving as a “camouflage,” see Polliack, “‘Voiceʼ of

Characters,” p. 903; eadem, “Karaite Conception of Mudawwin,” p. 372.
50 In various places in his commentary Yefet makes Scripture (al-kitāb) the subject
of sentences, and states that Scripture “mentions” (yadhkur) something (e.g.,
his comment on Gen 8:20, Ms. SP IOS B222, fol. 37b), or “reports” (yanuṣṣ)
about something (e.g., his comment on Gen 9:4, Ms. SP IOS B222, fol. 41b).
Moreover, there are instances in which Yefet makes Scripture responsible for
its own redaction and structure. For example, when commenting on Gen 41:16,
Yefet says: ‫א̇כתצר אלכתאב ידוון לנא מא ̇גרי מן כלאם יוסף אלי אלסלטאן ומעאני א̇כר אלתי‬
‫“( ̇גרת בינהם פ̇דכר אלגר̇ץ פערף אן פרעה צדק יוסף באלקול כקולה ופתר אין אתו‬Scripture
abbreviates [and does not] record for us [ikhtaṣara al-kitāb yudawwin lanā] the
[exact] words directed by Joseph to the king (sulṭān), and [what] other subjects
were spoken about between them. It only mentions the purpose [of the whole
conversation] and informs [us] that Pharaoh believed in the words of Joseph,
when he said and there is none that can interpret it [Gen 41:15].”) (Ms. SP IOS
B217, fols. 143a–b). Another example where Scripture is the subject of a sentence
describing its own redaction can be adduced from Yefet’s comment on Gen 47:10.
Here the exegete informs us that some people thought that Pharaoh was a fool not
to ask Jacob about anything related to wisdom, but just about his age. According
to Yefet, however, this is not true, since Pharaoh did ask Jacob about other things
as well, even though Scripture did not record them (lam yudawwinhā al-kitāb),
since it records only what is instructive for the reader (‫וקד י̇טן אלנאס פי פרעה אנה‬
‫כאן ̇גהל א̇ד ד̇כל אליה יעקב ולם יסלה ען שי מן אלחכם אלא ען עמרה פקט וליס אלאמר כ̇דאך בל‬
‫( )קד סאלה ען אשיא לם ידונהא אלכתאב ואנמא דוון מא יפאד מנה‬Ms. SP IOS B218, fols.
37a–b). In the same manuscript, we find Yefet’s interpretation of Gen 50:4–6,
in which the exegete explains how it was possible for Pharaoh to know about
Joseph’s request, even though it was conveyed in a conversation with the house
of Pharaoh, not with Pharaoh himself. Yefet concludes: ‫א̇כתצר אלכתאב אן ידוון לנא‬
‫“( מ̇כאטבה בית פרעה לפרעה‬Scripture abbreviates [and does not] record for us the
conversation [between] the house of Pharaoh and Pharaoh.”) (Ms. SP IOS B218,
fols. 117a–b). For an explanation of the same passage by the Talkhῑṣ (without
reference to Scripture), see Goldstein, Pentateuch Exegesis, pp. 206–207; eadem,
Karaite Exegesis, p. 129 (Eng.), pp. 192 (Ar.). For the use in the Talkhῑṣ of the
term Scripture (al-kitāb) as the subject of sentences, see ibid., pp. 210–211. Al-
Qirqisānī too often makes Scripture the subject of phrases, stating that Scripture
“says,” “ascribes,” or “informs [us] about” something (e.g., Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab
28* Was Moses the mudawwin of the Torah?

the same time, this concept was certainly a very useful abstract tool for
understanding and analyzing distinct textual phenomena, as well as the
process behind the final edition of the Torah, certain aspects of which
could not be so easily explained, if its final redaction had been attributed
unambiguously to Moses.51
Yet, the fact that the mudawwin could not be unequivocally identified
with Moses and remained anonymous evidently had no bearing, in Yefet’s
opinion, on the importance of the Torah as a divinely inspired text.52 God
was still believed to have been the heavenly originator of the Pentateuch
and Moses its earthly author, in the sense that he wrote it down, either by
himself or by dictating its first version or “draft”53 to others, after giving them
suitable instructions, whereas the final redactor merely copied, rearranged,
ordered and edited the collected text or texts.54
Moreover, it seems reasonable to assume that, just as in the case of the
Book of Psalms, here too Yefet was inclined to believe that this editing work
was not a purely human undertaking, the final mudawwin, whoever he may
have been, having also functioned under divine inspiration.55
It is noteworthy that, according to Yefet, Moses not only received a
direct, face-to-face revelation by which were transmitted to him all the
commandments, but also prophesied by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, while
blessing (Deut 33) or composing Psalms (Exod 15:1–18; Ps 90:1). In this
regard, Moses was no higher in rank than any other prophet who received

I 4529, fols. 31b, 41b, 48b). Sometimes, instead of the term “Scripture,” Karaite
exegetes use the term “text” (al-naṣṣ), for example Sahl ben Maṣliaḥ states that
“the text mentions” something (yadhkuruhu al-naṣṣ) (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I
4760, fol. 44a).
51 For an argument that the term mudawwin served after all as an exegetical tool
for solving textual difficulties and interpretative cruxes, see Ben-Shammai, “On
Mudawwin”; Goldstein, Karaite Exegesis, pp. 124–136.
52 On the lack of reluctance on Yefet’s part to acknowledge the anonymity of the
mudawwin of the Book of Psalms, see Simon, Four Approaches to Psalms, p. 73
(Heb.), p. 76 (Eng.).
53 On similar concepts expressed by Yefet with regard to the Book of Psalms, see
ibid., pp. 87 (Heb.), pp. 89–90 (Eng.).
54 On Yefet’s conviction that the biblical texts (in opposition to the Oral Law) were
not transmitted orally, but in writing, and were compiled in the epoch of their
authors, see ibid., p. 89 (Heb.), p. 91 (Eng.).
55 On the idea of the mudawwin being divinely inspired, see ibid., p. 88 (Heb.), p.
91 (Eng.). On the comparison made by Yefet between Moses and other prophets
concerning their respective modes of receiving the divine revelation, see above n.
15 and ibid., p. 78 (Heb.), p. 80 (Eng.).
 Marzena Zawanowska 29*

the revelation from the Holy Spirit (David, Solomon, the sons of Korah,
Asaph, Heman, Jeduthun).
In my view, making him equal – even if only in certain respects – to other
prophets together with the common Karaite conviction that the Five Books
of Moses are no better a source of religious legislation than other books of
the Bible, all the precepts and commandments being faithfully reported by
prophets,56 allowed Yefet to differentiate between the author of the Torah
(i.e., the person who actually received the divine revelation or inspiration)
and its mudawwin, just as he did in the case of the other biblical books. By
doing so, he apparently went further than any Karaite author of his day,
since – as far as I can see – no other medieval Karaite exegete differentiated
between Moses and the final mudawwin of the Torah.
Later on, our exegete found a faithful pupil in Abraham Ibn Ezra, a
devoted reader of Yefet’s Bible commentaries, who possibly under their
influence embraced some of the above-scrutinized innovative concepts, while
discussing “the mystery of the twelve [final] verses [of the Torah].” Over
time, however, Yefet and his works sank into oblivion. As a result, Spinoza
fully credited Ibn Ezra with originating the “revolutionary” idea that Moses
might not have been the sole and final author of the Pentateuch, though – I
believe – it should rightfully be traced back to our Karaite exegete.57

***
It appears that Yefet ben ʻEli conceived the process of writing down the
Torah as an undertaking carried out in four stages that involved: [1.] God as
the heavenly source of revelation and its original author (i.e., its originator);
[2.] the prophet, as an earthly recipient of the divine inspiration, who as a
human author, fulfilling the function of the authorial narrator or a storyteller,
reported – sometimes in his own words, other times quoting God’s exact
utterances – what he heard from the Creator; [3.] the scribe or the recorder
(who may or may not have been identical with the prophet); [4.] the compiler-
editor or redactor (who, again, may or may not have been identical with

56 In his comment on Num 20:12 Yefet contends: “The prophets sent to mediate
between the Lord and the nation resemble Moses in that they report the words of
the Lord as they heard them, without addition or omission.” Quoted from: Simon,
Four Approaches to Psalms, p. 78 (Heb.), p. 80 (Eng.). On Yefet’s conviction that
the prophet cannot be mistaken with respect to the received revelation, neither
forget nor change it, see Ben-Shammai, Doctrines of Religious Thought, vol. 1,
pp. 264–266; vol. 2, appendix 3/28, pp. 176–177.
57 See, e.g., Spinoza, Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, p. 145 (8:4).
30* Was Moses the mudawwin of the Torah?

the two previous individuals). Accordingly, this exponent of medieval

Karaite exegesis, although he would never have admitted it openly, probably
envisioned the recording (tadwīn) of the Pentateuch as a much longer and
more complex process than he was willing to declare officially in “formal”
statements such as: “Thus it is proved that Moses, may peace be upon him,
wrote down (kataba) the [entire] Torah.”58
Yefet seemed to have been aware that of these four distinct functions,
only the “reporting” and “storytelling” or “narrating” could be attributed
to Moses with no reservations.59 That does not mean, however, that in
his opinion, Moses did not also fulfill, at least partially, the other roles.
Nonetheless, the exegete probably felt that these other functions could not
easily be attributed to “the greatest prophet ever” in an uncontested and
clear-cut manner. This is probably why the term mudawwin, covering all
the different functions without associating it with one concrete person, was
such a useful and convenient invention. It enabled him to explain different
internal textual (literary or other) phenomena, as well as external, historical,
and other circumstances related to the formation of the Bible, without having
to determine who was responsible for the final edition of Scripture. It also
allowed Yefet to avoid confessing openly to an intuitive or learned opinion
that might diverge from a commonly accepted religious tenet, in keeping
with Maimonides’ warning: “It is right that a man should belong to that
class of men who have a conception of truth and understand it, though they
do not speak of it.”60
Having reached the conclusion that Moses was not the final redactor of
the Pentateuch, Yefet did not seem to be greatly concerned about the identity
of the editor. The part played by the anonymous mudawwin in compiling and
editing the Holy Writ did not diminish, in the exegete’s eyes, its importance
as a divinely inspired text, nor did it divest Moses of his role as the mortal
originator of the Torah (“but the teaching and the instruction came from
Moses”). Similarly, in our day, too, the work of the editor and the changes

58 On the contrast between more conservative theoretical (or rhetorical), exegetical

positions, as expressed by certain exegetes, and their actual exegetical practice,
see Polliack, “‘Voiceʼ of Characters,” p. 900.
59 On the lack of evidence for Yefet’s identification of the mudawwin with Moses,
see ibid., p. 903. For an explicit identification of the biblical narrator or storyteller
with Moses, see, e.g., Yefet’s comment on Gen 13:10: ‫ה̇דא קול אלמחכי משה על׳‬
‫“( אלסל׳‬This is a statement [pronounced] by the storyteller [al-muḥkī] Moses, may
peace be upon him.”) (Ms. SP IOS B222, fol. 98a).
60 See Maimonides, Guide for Perplexed, p. 68.
 Marzena Zawanowska 31*

he introduces to the manuscript do not undermine the authorship of the

book. In this sense, Yefet, though he remained a true homo religiosus, was
ready to accept the intellectual conclusion that Moses did not produce the
final version of the Torah. As a Karaite, this was even easier for him, since
in certain respects the Karaites perceived all the twenty-four books of the
Tanakh in a more “equal” manner than the Rabbanites.61
Finally, it should be noted that the introduction of the human mudawwin,
who played a more significant role than that of a mere scribe, copyist, or
recorder of God’s words, testifies to the growing historical and literary
awareness of the medieval Karaite exegetes, which was influenced by the
achievements of the surrounding Islamic culture. This concept may also be
considered an outcome of the internal Jewish debate over the nature and
status of the Holy Writ and the ways in which it should be interpreted, or
as an intrinsic element of Karaite hermeneutic conceptualization. At the
same time, it may also be understood as an apologetic endeavor to refute the
Christians’ and Muslims’ allegations against the Hebrew Script.62 For it is
my contention that, paradoxically, in order to preserve the divine dimension
of the Holy Writ and its heavenly origin, it might have proved much more
effective to acknowledge the active involvement of a human hand in the
process of shaping the final version of the biblical text, written for humans,
and therefore in human language and by humans63.

61 Since the Karaites rejected the binding authority of the rabbinic tradition and
denied the validity of its religious legislation (halakha) as encapsulated in the Oral
Law, they needed to fill the resulting vacuum by deriving new legislation from
all the books of the Hebrew Bible. For more about the reasons standing behind
this shift in the Karaite approach to religious legislation, see Vajda, “Etudes sur
Qirqisani” 122 (1963), pp. 51–57. On this procedure as initiated by the alleged
founder of the Karaite movement, ʻAnan ben David, see Ankori, Karaites in
Byzantium, p. 209; Baron, Social and Religious History, vol. 5, p. 212; Wieder,
Judean Scrolls, pp. 78–89. See also Lasker, “Influence on Maimonides,” pp. 155–
156 and n. 53. For the legislative activity of post-Mosaic prophets, see Frank,
Search Scripture Well, pp. 239–242.
62 For slightly different reasons behind the development of the concept of a biblical
mudawwin conceived of as a manifestation of the Karaite interest in structural
analysis of the biblical text, see Goldstein, Pentateuch Exegesis, pp. 224–239. Cf.
above, n. 51.
63 Cf. ibid., pp. 232–235. Yet, it has also been suggested that the theory of human
editor(s) of Scripture was often rejected by Bible exegetes for similar (polemical)
reasons, viz., to defend its holy character against the Christians’ and Muslims’
allegations of human falsification or distortion, and alteration of the Hebrew Writ,
which were meant to justify its abrogation and supersession by later revelations.
32* Was Moses the mudawwin of the Torah?

Nonetheless, Yefet’s identification of someone other than Moses as the

final redactor of the Pentateuch was overstepping the bounds vis-à-vis his
own coreligionists, in addition to being a dangerous weapon for the anti-
Bible polemicists. It thus remains concealed under the ambiguous term of
al-mudawwin.

Abbrevations
Ankori, Karaites in Byzantium = Zvi Ankori, Karaites in Byzantium: The
Formative Years, 970–1100 (New York and Jerusalem: Columbia
University Press and the Weizmann Science Press of Israel, 1959).
Astren, Karaite Judaism = Fred Astren, Karaite Judaism and Historical
Understanding (Columbia, S.C.: University of South Carolina Press,
2004).
Baron, Social and Religious History = Salo W. Baron, A Social and Religious
History of the Jews, 2nd ed., 18 vols. (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication
Society, 1957).
Ben-Shammai, Doctrines of Religious Thought = Haggai Ben-Shammai,
The Doctrines of Religious Thought of Abū Yusūf Yaʻqūb al-Qirqisānī
and Yefet ben ʻEli, 2 vols. Ph.D. dissertation (Jerusalem: The Hebrew
University of Jerusalem, 1977) [Hebrew].
Ben-Shammai, “On Mudawwin” = Haggai Ben-Shammai, “On Mudawwin –
the Redactor of the Hebrew Bible in Judaeo-Arabic Bible Exegesis,”
in From Sages to Savants: Studies Presented to Avraham Grossman,
eds. Joseph Hacker, Benjamin Z. Kedar and Joseph Kaplan (Jerusalem:
the Zalman Shazar Center for Jewish History, 2009), pp. 73–110
[Hebrew].
Blau, Dictionary of Judaeo-Arabic = Joshua Blau, A Dictionary of Mediaeval
Judaeo-Arabic Texts (Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew
Language, the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 2006)
[Hebrew].
Drory, Emergence of Literary Contacts = Rina Drory, The Emergence of
Jewish-Arabic Literary Contacts at the Beginning of the Tenth Century
(Tel Aviv: Porter Institute of Poetics and Semiotics, 1988) [Hebrew].

For a discussion of polemical reasons behind the rejection of the theory of human
editor(s) of Scripture by later Bible exegetes from Spain, see, e.g., Steiner,
“Theory of Biblical Redaction.”
 Marzena Zawanowska 33*

Erder, “Moral Issues” = Yoram Erder, “The Attitude of the Karaite Yefet
ben ʻEli to Moral Issues in the Light of his Interpretation of Exodus
3:21–22,” Sefunot 22 (1999), pp. 313–333 [Hebrew].
Frank, Search Scripture Well = Daniel Frank, Search Scripture Well: Karaite
Exegetes and the Origins of the Jewish Bible Commentary in the
Islamic East (Leiden: Brill, 2004).
Gil, Palestine 634–1099 = Moshe Gil, Palestine During the First Muslim
Period, 634–1099, 3 vols. (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press, 1983)
[Hebrew]; Eng. trans. by Ethel Broido, A History of Palestine 634–1099
(Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992).
Goldstein, Pentateuch Exegesis = Miriam Goldstein, The Pentateuch Exegesis
of the Karaite Yūsuf ibn Nūḥ and Abū al-Faraj Hārūn: an Examination
of Method in the Context of the Contemporaneous Literary and
Exegetical Approaches of Jews, Christians and Muslims, Ph.D.
dissertation (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2006).
Goldstein, Karaite Exegesis = Miriam Goldstein, Karaite Exegesis in Medieval
Jerusalem. The Judeo-Arabic Pentateuch Commentary of Yusuf ibn
Nuh and Abu al-Faraj Harun (Tuebingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2011).
Halevi, Kuzari = Judah Halevi, The Kuzari: An Argument for the Faith
of Israel, trans. from Arabic by Hartwig Hirschfeld (New York:
Schocken Books, 1964).
Hirschfeld, Qirqisāni Studies = Hartwig Hirschfeld, Qirqisāni Studies
(London: Jews’ College Publications, No. 6, 1918).
Lasker, “Influence on Maimonides” = Daniel Lasker, “The Influence of
Karaism on Maimonides,” Sefunot 20 (1991), pp. 145–161 [Hebrew].
Mann, Texts and Studies = Jacob Mann, Texts and Studies in Jewish History
and Literature, 2 vols. (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press,
1931–35; repr. New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1935), vol. 2
“Karaitica.”
Maimonides, Guide for Perplexed = Moses Maimonides, The Guide for the
Perplexed, trans. from Arabic by Michael Friedländer, 2nd ed. (New
York: Dover Publications Inc, 2000).
Margoliouth, “Ibn Al-Hiti’s Chronicle” = George Margoliouth, “Ibn Al-Hiti’s
Arabic Chronicle of Karaite Doctors,” Jewish Quarterly Review o.s.
9 (1897), pp. 429–444.
Marwick, “Order of Books” = Lawrence Marwick, “The Order of the
Books in Yefet’s Bible Codex,” Jewish Quarterly Review o.s. 33
(1942–43), pp. 445–460.
34* Was Moses the mudawwin of the Torah?

Nemoy (ed.), Code of Karaite Law = Kitāb al-anwār wa-al-marākib. Code

of Karaite Law, ed. Leon Nemoy, 4 vols. (New York: Alexander
Kohut Memorial Foundation, 1939–43).
Nemoy, Karaite Anthology = Leon Nemoy, Karaite Anthology (New Haven
and London: Yale University Press, 1952).
Polliack, Karaite Tradition of Translation = Meira Polliack, The Karaite
Tradition of Arabic Bible Translation (Leiden: Brill, 1997).
Polliack, “Karaite Conception of Mudawwin” = Meira Polliack, “The Karaite
Conception of the Biblical Narrator (Mudawwin),” in Encyclopedia
of Midrash, eds. Jacob Neusner and Alan Jeffery Avery-Peck (Leiden:
Brill, 2005), pp. 350–374.
Polliack, “‘Voiceʼ of Characters” = Meira Polliack, “The ‘Voiceʼ of the
Characters in the Bible Commentaries of Yefet ben ʻEli,” in Birkat
Shalom – Studies in the Bible, Ancient Near Eastern Literature and
Post-biblical Judaism, Presented to Shalom M. Paul on the Occasion
of his Seventieth Birthday, eds. Chaim Cohen, Avigdor Hurowitz,
Avi Hurvitz, Yochanan Muffs, Baruch Schwartz and Jeffrey Tigay
(Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2008), pp. 891–915.
Polliack & Schlossberg, “Methods of Interpretation” = Meira Polliack &
Eliezer Schlossberg, “Historical-Literary, Rhetorical and Redactional
Methods of Interpretation in Yefet Ben ʻEli’s Introduction to the Minor
Prophets,” in Exegesis and Grammar in Medieval Karaite Texts, ed.
Geoffrey Khan (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), pp. 1–39.
Polliack & Schlossberg, Yefet ben ʻEli on Hosea = Meira Polliack & Eliezer
Schlossberg, Commentary of Yefet ben ʻEli the Karaite on the Book
of Hosea (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2009) [Hebrew].
Poznański, “Karaite Opponents of Saadia” = Samuel Poznański, “The Karaite
Literary Opponents of Saadia Gaon,” Jewish Quarterly Review o.s.
18 (1906), pp. 209–250; 19 (1907), pp. 59–83; 20 (1908), pp. 74–85
and 216–231; repr. in idem, The Karaite Literary Opponents of Saadia
Gaon (London: Luzac & Co., 1908); repr. in Karaite Studies, ed. Philip
Birnbaum (New York: Sepher Hermon Press, 1971), pp. 129–234.
Saadia, Book of Beliefs = Saadia Gaon, The Book of Beliefs and Opinions,
trans. from Arabic and Hebrew by Samuel Rosenblatt, 2nd ed. (New
Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1976).
Simon, Four Approaches to Psalms = Uriel Simon, Four Approaches to the
Book of Psalms: From Saadya Gaon to Abraham ibn Ezra (Ramat
Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1982) [Hebrew]; Eng. trans. by Lenn
 Marzena Zawanowska 35*

J. Schramm (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991);

reviewed by Haggai Ben-Shammai, “Review: Uriel Simon, Four
Approaches to the Book of Psalms: From Saadya Gaon to Abraham
Ibn Ezra,” Kiryat Sefer 58 (1983), pp. 400–405 [Hebrew].
Skoss, Ali ben Suleiman on Genesis = Solomon L. Skoss, The Arabic
Commentary of Ali ben Suleiman the Karaite on the Book of Genesis
(Philadelphia: Dropsie College for Hebrew and Cognate, 1928).
Sokolow, Yefet ben Ali on Deuteronomy = Moshe Sokolow, The Commentary
of Yefet ben Ali on Deuteronomy xxxii, Ph.D. dissertation (New York:
Yeshiva University, 1974) [Hebrew].
Spinoza, Tractus Theologico-Politicus = Benedict de Spinoza, Tractatus
Theologico-Politicus, Tractatus Politicus, translated from the Latin,
with an Introduction by R.H.M. Elwes (London: George Bell and
Sons, 1891).
Steiner, “Theory of Biblical Redaction” = Richard C. Steiner, “A Jewish
Theory of Biblical Redaction from Byzantium: its Rabbinic Roots, its
Diffusion and its Encounter with the Muslim Doctrine of Falsification,”
Jewish Studies an Internet Journal 2 (2003), pp. 123–167.
Sternberg, Poetics of Biblical Narrative = Meir Sternberg, The Poetics of
Biblical Narrative. Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading
(Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1985).
Vajda, “Etudes sur Qirqisani” = George Vajda, “Etudes sur Qirqisani,” Revue
des études juives 106–108 (1946–47), pp. 87–123, 52–98, 63–91;
120 (1961), pp. 211–257; 122 (1963), pp. 7–74.
Wechsler, Yefet ben ʻEli on Esther = Michael Wechsler, The Arabic Translation
and Commentary of Yefet ben ʻEli the Karaite on the Book of Esther
(Leiden: Brill, 2008).
Wieder, Judean Scrolls = Naphtali Wieder, The Judean Scrolls and Karaism
(London: East and West Library, 1962; repr. Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi
Institute for the Study of Jewish Communities in the East Yad Ben-
Zvi Press, 2005).
Zawanowska, Yefet ben ʻEli on Genesis = Marzena Zawanowska, The Arabic
Translation and Commentary of Yefet ben ʿEli the Karaite on the
Abraham Narratives (Genesis 11:10–25:18) (Leiden: Brill, 2012).
Zawanowska “Review of Research” = Marzena Zawanowska, “Review
of Scholarly Research on Yefet and His Works,” Revue des études
juives 173 (1/2) (2014), pp. 97–138.