Be'ur Setumot be-Rashi [Interpretation of Difficult Passages in Rashi, Part III, Numbers] (review)

Hebrew Studies 36 (1995) 237 Reviews to give this interpretation?" In still other cases the English itself leaves much to be desired, falling far short of the eloquence of Gikatilla's Hebrew. On the relationship of shekhinah to King David we read (p. 36): "She cleaved to David, and it was from her that David inherited the kingdom , and it was this attribute that David supplicated himself to and appealed to...." Gikatilla deserves greater eloquence. These inadequacies do not make the translation unusable. Throughout most of the book one can get a sense of what Gikatilla intended, especially if one has some previous knowledge of the Kabbalistic system. Accompanied by other selections from Kabbalistic sources, I could imagine assigning this work to students in a course on Jewish mysticism. From the Hebraist's point of view, the transliterations employed in this book, where virtually every noun is a terminus technicus and therefore has to be preserved in Hebrew, are a particular source of annoyance. The antiquated CH is used for both n and ~; no designation at all is used for an initial or final __ or.s>; in the medial position they are sometimes recognized , sometimes not. Capital letters are used to indicate some consonants (sometimes, but not always, these are root letters), but not others. Abominations abound. On page 90 "oath" is rendered SHeVuAh, the wellknown place name is BE'eR SHeVa, and "they swore" is niSHBAu. Misguided attempts at consistency lead to such outright errors as ZiCHaRoN (p. 68) or maZCHiR (p. 69). Sometimes there are just careless mistakes like NOSEH AVON (p. 6) or EVeN GeDuLaH (p. 22). The transliterations detract greatly from the readability of the volume, and unnecessarily so. A little professional editing by someone with experience in English translations could have improved this volume a great deal. Arthur Green Brandeis University Waltham, MA 02254 BE'UR SETUMOT BE-RASHI [INTERPRETATION OF DIFFICULT PASSAGES IN RASHI, PART III, NUMBERS]. By Pinehas Doron. Pp. xviii + 329. Brooklyn: Sepher, 1990. Cloth. Doron's Hebrew volume explaining difficulties in Rashi's commentary to Numbers must be evaluated on the basis of the population he addresses, the theoretical assumptions he takes to his enterprise, and the intellectual Hebrew Studies 36 (1995) 238 Reviews quality of the execution of the task he appoints for himself. This book is not a work of scholarship in the Western academic tradition. Although the author presents himself as a scholar and exploits a footnote apparatus, his work is prefaced by haskamot, or approbations of renown pious rabbis who attest to the Jewish orthodoxy of the author and his findings. Truth, to this view, is based on communal perceptions of theological correctness and not reasoned demonstration. The author makes several references to what he incorrectly takes to be the first edition of Rashi in 1474 (1475) for preferable readings, giving the reader the impression that he has "discovered America" with the insight that manuscript and first edition evidence is useful in scholarship. Had Doron kept up with his scholarship, he would be aware that the first edition of Rashi was published in Rome (1470)! Little attention is given, although citation is made, of M. M. Brachfeld's Yosef Hillel, which predates Doron's study and is more thorough in its treatment of manuscript and first edition data. There is no mention here of contemporary scholars who have written important studies on Rashi, such as L. Zunz, A. Berliner, I. Sonne, J. Gellis, E. Shereshevsky, M. Greenberg, A. Agus, N. Leibowitz, A. Ovadia, M. Gruber, H. Englander, H. Hailperin, or B. B. Levy. The authorities Doron cites are part of his community'S canon, including R. E. Mizrahi and the late R. M. M. Schneerson, the "Lubavitcher Rebbe." By his own concession, Doron is writing "for people with a basic background in Hebrew and Torah studies." The idiom "Torah studies" implies that the work is not only consistent with Orthodox Jewish theology, but that the author only cites those "authorities" whose views are part of the orthodox community's canon. When disagreeing with the canon of Rashi supercommentaries on Num 1:17, Doron introduces his suggestion with the Talmudic idiom lulei demistefina , "lest I fear," which...