R. Raphael Berdugo's method of reconciling contradictions in the Bible

Berdugo was neither the first nor the last to face the question of how we should relate to the talmudic sages' solutions of various cruxes in biblical exegesis. The burden of this question is that peshat interpretation is liable to entail the rejection of rabbinic interpretations that follow a different approach and thus to erode the authority of the earlier generations. Examples of the problem can be found in the commentaries of Ibn Ezra, Abravanel, S.D. Luzzatto, and others. Some resolved the dilemma by a total acceptance of the sages' view and defended them vigorously; others, however, felt it necessary to assert the legitimacy of disagreeing with the sages about the meaning of the text.32 When readers who are not familiar with Berdugo encounter the title of this article, they might well expect that a rabbi, halakhic decisor, and dayyan, well-versed in the writings of the sages and committed to their authority, would stick as close as possible to their views in his biblical commentaries. Other exegetes, who could not accept the hypothesis that the sages sometimes misspoke themselves, went to extraordinary lengths to find explanations that would not present them as mistaken. In fact, this is not the picture derived from the examples we have seen from Berdugo's commentary on the Former Prophets. He was guided by the pursuit of truth. When this principle came into conflict with the views of the sages, he preferred it to their explanations. In this article we have seen how an eighteenth-century Jewish scholar, endeavoring to resolve the difficulties he found in rabbinic midrashim, attempted simultaneously to treat the sages' with respect and to develop an independent exegetical method. In this paper I have examined Berdugo's exegetical contribution to the issue of contradictions and inconsistencies in the Bible. Berdugo dealt with a number of problems in this area. His motivation seems to have been exegetical rather than polemical. This conclusion rests on the fact that there were no political or social upheavals during his lifetime that could have served as the background for polemical interpretations.33 His interpretations exhibit an adherence to the plain meaning, as well as creativity, originality, and boldness he does not hesitate to offer an interpretation different from that of the talmudic sages. On the other hand, he clearly attempts to stay within the bounds of the tradition and never overemphasizes his disagreements with them. Sometimes he is willing to assume that the scribe was unable to choose between conflicting versions and left both of them in the text. With regard to the contradiction between Kings and Jeremiah concerning the date of the destruction of the First Temple, he does not take the sages' reconciliation for granted, but attempts to resolve the contradiction in a fashion that avoids the difficulties of their method while fitting with his understanding of the plain meaning. He does not accept the chronology of Seder Olam Rabbah unchallenged, nor does he have any qualms about saying that the sages' solution to the inconsistencies in the story of David's census is "far-fetched." Berdugo's vacillation in his attitude toward rabbinic midrashim was also evident in his great predecessor, the pre-eminent Moroccan sage R. Hayyim Ben Attar. It seems plausible that where Berdugo decided against the talmudic sages' opinion he was relying on the precedent of that giant.34 When we examine the ways in which he resolved the various contradictions we are led to the conclusion that Berdugo's exegetical method falls directly in the peshat, tradition, which relies chiefly on reason and logic.35 A comparison of modern commentaries on the issues tackled by Berdugo shows that we would be justified in viewing him as one of those who paved the way for the peshat, exegesis of our own generation. His frequent references to David Kimhi and Gersonides in his treatment of contradictions demonstrates his attempt to follow in the footsteps of the rationalist commentators. In fact, the two are mentioned in Berdugo's poem, Kaf ha-zahav, as those whose "path is straight." Of course we cannot always agree with Berdugo that his is the only or best reading from the exegetical perspective. Methodologically, however, he is always consistent with the peshat, approach employing the facts that can be derived from the texts themselves, supported by reasoning and common sense.