The Incorporation of Pre-Modern Scientific Theories into Biblical Literature: The Case of Innate Heat

Edward Reichman is an Assistant Professor of Emergency Medicine at Montefiore Medical Center and Assistant Professor of Philosophy and History of Medicine at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine (AECOM) of Yeshiva University, New York. He received his rabbinic ordination from the Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary of Yeshiva University and writes and lectures widely in the field of Jewish medical ethics. He is the recipient of a Kornfeld Foundation Fellowship and the Rubinstein Prize in Medical Ethics, and is a member of the Medical Board of the New York Organ Donor Network. His research is devoted to the interface of medical history and Jewish law.

THE INCORPORATION OF PRE-MODERN SCIENTIFIC

THEORIES INTO BIBLICAL LITERATURE:

THE CASE OF INNATE HEAT

INTRODUCTION

Rabbinic commentators throughout the ages utilized many disciplines of

human knowledge for their exegetical enterprise in the hope of achieving

optimal textual and legal clarification. For passages that explicitly refer or allude to anatomical or physiological notions, commentators often drew upon

contemporaneous medical and scientific theories to enhance or supplement

their understanding of a passage. While the methodology of employing scien-

tific theories for rabbinic exegesis is ubiquitous throughout the centuries, the particular theories used are a product of the exegete’s generation. Only a

knowledge of medical history can assist the reader in understanding an au-

thor’s application of scientific teachings in his commentary.

This essay deals with one unique pre-modern physiological notion, the doc-

trine of innate heat, which finds its expression throughout rabbinic literature. After providing a brief overview of this physiological principle, I will provide examples of rabbinic passages of biblical exegesis in which it has been employed. This exercise illustrates how an understanding of medical history

can be a valuable supplement for the study of biblical literature.1

THE DOCTRINE OF INNATE HEAT

Since the beginnings of scientific inquiry, research efforts have focused on defining the unique physiological properties of warm-blooded animals and, in particular, the human being. One such fundamental property is the ability of the human being to maintain core body temperature despite fluctuations in

the outside environment. This principle, in conjunction with the movement of

the blood and the passage of air during respiration, has always served as a

cornerstone of physiology.

While a corpse soon accommodates its temperature to that of its surround-

ing environment, a living being succeeds in maintaining body temperature

with only very slight variability. What accounts for this remarkable pheno-

menon? We now understand the origin of the body’s heat on a molecular lev-

el, being generated by the interplay of multiple complex biochemical reac-

tions. But how did the pre-modern scientist, unequipped with a microscope

and ignorant of biochemistry, microbiology and cellular physiology, explain

this phenomenon?

In order to account for the body’s ability to maintain a temperature above its environment, scientists of antiquity postulated the presence of a heat source within the body. As the exact nature of this heat was elusive, intense debates regarding its identity, quantity, and regulation raged on for centuries.2

It must

be understood, however, that innate heat is but one piece of the complex puzzle of human cardiac and respiratory physiology as understood in antiquity.

While many theories evolved in early antiquity to explain the different as-

pects of innate heat,3

the formulation of Galen (second century C.E.), who

incorporated aspects from, among others, Hippocrates4

and Aristotle, super-

seded those of his predecessors. Galen’s theories of human physiology, in-

cluding innate heat, remained prevalent, with only minor variations, into the eighteenth century. According to Galen, heat is the most important element in the body, facilitating the existence of life. Innate heat is housed within the heart5

where the heat is the greatest,6

and from where the heat is disseminated

to the rest of the body.7

By means of this innate heat all the major physiologi-

cal functions of the body are accomplished, including growth, digestion and

production and regulation of the humors. Regarding the regulation of innate

heat, Galen maintained that the heat must be cooled and contained by respiration if the source of life is to persist, for in the absence of this cooling mechanism, the heat will consume itself, and the person will die.8

BIBLICAL COMMENTARIES

The doctrine of innate heat, a physiological notion universally accepted

until recent times, is mentioned in a number of areas of rabbinic literature, and is variously referred to as hom ha-tiv’i, hom ha-toladi, and hom ha-lev. In

INNATE HEAT

this essay, we focus, in a chronological fashion, on the doctrine of innate heat as found in biblical commentaries.

THE CREATION OF MAN

The second account of the creation of man reads, And the Lord God formed

man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of

life; and man became a living soul (Gen. 2:7). While most commentaries on

this verse focus on the process by which man received his soul, Abraham Ibn

Ezra addresses the relationship between the nostrils and the creation of life: “The reason it says ‘into his nostrils,’ for it is by their virtue that man lives. They remove the warm air from the [innate] heat of the heart, and replace it with other air.” As described above, respiration of air through the nostrils was thought to be essential for the cooling and regulation of the innate heat of the heart. If this cooling mechanism failed, it was believed that the innate heat would consume the body.

This comment of Ibn Ezra was cited by Zevi Ashkenazi (?1660-1718),

known as Hakham Zevi, in his famous responsum on the halakhic status of a

chicken that was found to be lacking a heart,9

and is an example of the appli-

cation of homiletic exegesis to the realm of halakhah. In this responsum of

Ashkenazi which emphasizes the physiological and halakhic importance of

the heart, the understanding that the heart is the center of the innate heat figures prominently in the discussion, and many of Hakham Zevi’s prooftexts

regarding the centrality of the heart, including that of Ibn Ezra, rely on this physiological notion. This particular responsum has been applied to the contemporary halakhic debate regarding the definition of death,10

an area where a

medical historical analysis of the rabbinic sources can be particularly helpful.11

The aforementioned interpretation of Ibn Ezra, as quoted by Ashkenazi,

also appears in other modern responsa. 12

Returning to the homiletic realm, the aforementioned verse regarding the

creation of man was adapted by the prophet Isaiah in the following statement: Cease from man, though his breath be in his nostrils [neshamah be-apo] for

in what is he to be accounted of? (Isa. 2:22). In his commentary on this verse, David Kimhi explains it along the same vein as did Ibn Ezra: “and it says ‘in his nostrils’ because the spirit [ruah] of life depends on the nose. It is through

the nostrils that innate heat of the heart exits, and likewise it is through the nostrils that the cooling air enters.“13

THE FAINTING OF JACOB

Upon hearing that his son Joseph was still alive, Jacob’s response was dra-

matic:

And they told him, saying, Joseph is still alive, and he is governor

over all the land of Egypt. Vayafag libo, for he believed them not.

And they told him all the words of Joseph which he had said to

them. And when he saw the wagons which Joseph had sent to car-

ry him, the ruah of Jacob their father revived (Gen. 45:26-27).

Rashi explains the phrase “vayafag libo” to mean that Jacob turned his heart away in disbelief, but after seeing the wagons and realizing the truth, the

power of prophecy, or the presence of the Shekhinah (i.e., ruah) was rekin-

dled within him. According to Siftei Hakhamim, Rashi was compelled to in-

terpret the phrase to mean that Jacob regained his powers of prophecy be-

cause the word ruah is used, and this word, in other contexts, refers to prophecy. Nachmanides, as we will see, does not feel bound by the same defini-

tional constraints and interprets the term ruah differently.

This exegetical debate is an example of a larger problem regarding the am-

biguous definition of the term “spirit,” and its Hebrew analogue, “ruah.” G.J. Goodfield notes that in the history of medicine the word “spirits” could at one and the same time mean a gas, a volatile fluid, a soul, an animating principle, something which was the cause of nervous energy in the animal, something

which was the cause of its being alive, and something which when mixed

with various other substances was the cause of heat in the animal.14

The term had material and immaterial, descriptive and explanatory implica-

tions. Goodfield further quotes Aristotle, who clearly acknowledges the am-

biguous usage and nature of the word. A similar ambiguity exists with the

usage of the analogous word “ruah” in Hebrew. For example, Maimonides

details the multiple meanings of the word.15

Returning to the interpretation of the biblical passage, Nachmanides argues

for a different etymology for the word “vayafag,” meaning cessation or arrest, as well as for the word “ruah.” With these different meanings, he advances

the following novel interpretation:

INNATE HEAT

. . . likewise here vayafag libo means that his heart arrested and his

breathing ceased, for the heartbeat stopped and he appeared as

dead. . . . And it is mentioned in the medical books that the elderly

and infirm often faint when confronted with a sudden surprise. The

heart expands and suddenly opens, the natural heat [hom ha-toladi]

escapes and dissipates, and the heart, thereby cooled, ceases activi-

ty. The aged man then collapses as if dead. And it says “for he be-

lieved them not,“ to indicate that he remained unconscious for a

long time because he did not believe them. For it is known that the

treatment for this type of fainting is to shout at him and accustom

him to the surprise until he is calmed. This is why it says “and they

told him all the words of Joseph, which he had said to them. And

when he saw the wagons which Joseph had sent to carry him. . . ,“

for they were shouting into his ears the words of Joseph and bring-

ing before him the wagons. Only then was his respiration [ruah]

restored and he awoke and regained consciousness, as it says, “the

ruah of Jacob their father revived.“ 16

Here Nachmanides applies the physiological principle of innate, or natural,

heat (i.e., hom ha-toladi) to provide what, in his opinion, is the most logical and literal interpretation of the passage.17

The sudden surprise caused the dis-

sipation of innate heat, which resulted in Jacob’s fainting. Only with the auditory and physical stimulation of his sons did Jacob regain consciousness.

Nachmanides interprets the phrase, “vatechi ruach Yaakov” in a very literal

sense – his breathing was restored and he was revived. Parenthetically, Maimonides, in his commentary on Galen entitled Pirkei Mosheh, devotes a sec-

tion to the causes of fainting wherein he also notes that the surprise mention of good news can lead to the dissipation of innate heat.18

THE AGING AND ILLNESS OF KING DAVID

The Book of Kings opens with an account of the aging of King David, and

states that, despite his layered clothing, he could not become warm (I Kg.

1:1). In his commentary, David Kimhi attempts to explain the nature of King

David’s deficiency of heat and makes the following comment: “In his old age

he became infirm and bedridden. . . and as long as the aging process

progresses, the innate heat [hom ha-tiv’I] continues to diminish, therefore,

and they covered him with clothes, but he could not become warm.“ This no-

tion of the diminution of innate heat with age was a commonly held belief.

Mezudat David (eighteenth century) understands King David’s illness in the

same vein, and uses this to explain why Avishag the Shunammite was present

in the King’s quarters when Bathsheba paid him a visit. “Lest we think that

she [Bathsheba] came to lie with the King, it says, ’and the king was very

old.’ His innate heat had diminished, and Avishag was serving the King by

providing warmth.“19

RESUSCITATION EPISODES OF ELIJAH AND ELISHA

There are two accounts of resuscitation in Tanakh, both performed by

prophets, with the actual resuscitation procedures being similar. The first was performed by Elijah on the son of the widow of Zarephat: And he stretched

himself upon the child three times, and cried to the Lord and said, ’O Lord

my God, I pray thee, let this child’s soul return to him again,’ and he revived (I Kg. 17:21-22).20

The second was performed by Elisha on the son of the Shunammite wom-

an:

And he went up, and lay upon the child, and put his mouth upon

his mouth, and his eyes upon his eyes, and his hands upon his

hands and he stretched himself upon the child; and the flesh of the

child was warmed. Then he returned, and walked in the house to

and fro; and went up, and stretched himself upon him and the

child sneezed seven times, and the child opened his eyes (II Kg.

4:34-35).

While many have drawn upon our modern understanding of physiology and

resuscitation in order to shed light on these episodes,21

I would like to focus

on how the pre-modern commentator understood the strange maneuvers of

Elijah and Elisha. While the miraculous element of both resuscitations seems clear, David Kimhi suggests that the method of resuscitation was chosen so

that these miracles, like others in Tanakh, would have some basis in the natural world order.22

He therefore posits, based on his contemporary understand-

ing of nature, that the prophets positioned their mouths against those of the victims in order to transmit their innate heat, via respiration and exhalation, into the victims’ lifeless bodies. The inspired air was thought to travel directly

INNATE HEAT

to the heart, where it came in contact with the innate heat. When the air was released during exhalation, it was now a higher temperature, having been

warmed by the heat of the heart. As innate heat is required for the generation and preservation of life, the method employed by both Elijah and Elisha

represents, according to Kimhi, a natural physiological basis for resuscitation upon which the miracle was based.

THE HEALING OF NA’AMAN FROM ZARA’AT

Na’aman, the military commander for the king of Aram, is one of a few

specific people mentioned in Tanakh as being stricken with the disease of

zara’at.23

While zara’at is mentioned many times throughout Tanakh, there is

one literary aspect of the story of Na’aman which attracted the attention of biblical commentaries. The discussions of zara’at in Leviticus focus largely on the diagnosis of the disease, while the story of Na’aman focuses on its

treatment. Throughout the passage in II Kings, the enigmatic word asaf is

consistently employed to refer to the cure for zara’at, [va-asafto mi-zara’ato (5:6), le-esof ish mi-zara’ato (5:7), ve-asaf ha-mizora (5:11)].

The usual term for healing is le-rapot, not le-esof. Both Rashi and Radak

explain the usage of the verb asaf based on the unique social and halakhic

dimensions of the disease of zara’at. The word asaf means to gather, or be

gathered. When stricken with zara’at, a person is ostracized, both socially

and physically, from the camp of Israel. Once cured, the person can now re-

turn to the camp, and again gather with his people.24

Ralbag, in the fourteenth century, also contends that the cure for zara’at is unique, and therefore merits the use of a verb other than le-rapot. However, his justification for the use of the verb asaf is based on the physiological, rather than halakhic or social, uniqueness of the disease:

The cure for zara’at is called asifah because zara’at makes from

one, many. The domination of the putrid fever or heat [hom ha-

ipushi] weakens the innate heat, which is normally responsible for

binding and unifying the limbs of the body. Consequently, in the

mezorah [who lacks this unifying force] we often find that their

limbs fall off. Therefore [Elisha] says, regarding the healing, that

“thy flesh shall be restored to thee, and thou shalt be clean,” for the

mezora lacks the substance or power which normally allows the

flesh to adhere to the body.25

Ralbag operates with the premise, which was widely accepted throughout

history, that biblical zara’at was identified as leprosy. He therefore applies the principles of the pathology of leprosy, as understood in his time, to the explanation of this abnormal verb usage. The notion that leprosy was in part due to the decline of the unifying and adhesive force of the innate heat was already advanced by Galen.26

CHEESE ANALOGY OF JOB

Nestled among the conversations of Job we find a number of metaphors for

the creation of man: Remember, I beseech thee, that thou hast made me like

clay; and wilt thou bring me back to dust? Hast thou not poured me out like

milk, and curdled me like cheese? (Job 10:10). In his commentary on this

verse, Ralbag applies the physiological principle of innate heat in order to explain the cheese analogy, stating that the innate heat found in the seed of the male congeals or solidifies the seed of the female with which it comes

into contact.

This analogy of the formation of the human embryo to the process of mak-

ing cheese was already advanced by Aristotle:

The action of the semen of the male in setting the female’s secre-

tion in the uterus is similar to that of rennet upon milk. Rennet is

milk, which contains vital heat, as semen does. . . . As the nature

of milk and the menstrual fluid is one and the same, the action of

the semen upon the substance of the menstrual fluid is the same as

that of rennet upon milk.27

Isaac ben Sheshet, in the fourteenth century, is aware of the Greek origins

of the cheese analogy, and, in fact, comments that this physiological understanding is in contradiction to rabbinic teachings which state that both the male and female contribute material to the fetus.28

I therefore assume that

Ralbag thought otherwise, else he would not have used it in his commentary.

CONCLUSION

The understanding of the use of the doctrine of innate heat enhances our

understanding of rabbinic biblical interpretation in a number of ways. On the

INNATE HEAT

microcosmic level, it helps explain passages that heretofore may not have

been fully understood. On the macrocosmic level, it reveals the breadth of the biblical commentators in their integration of scientific theory into their

works. The doctrine was consistently applied, in numerous cases, by the most prominent of exegetes. In addition, the thematic, literary and etymological

ways in which the doctrine was applied is a testimony to rabbinic creativity.29 This article illustrates the importance of medical history for the study of

rabbinic literature and contributes to the continued discourse regarding the approach to passages in rabbinic literature where the scientific information differs from that of our modern understanding.

NOTES

1. This article is adapted from the author’s “The Incorporation of Early Scientific Theories into Rabbinic Literature,” The Torah U-Madda Journal 8 (1998-1999) pp. 181-199. For other studies by this author on the interface between medical history and rabbinic literature, see “The Halakhic Definition of Death in Light of Medical History,” The Torah U-Madda Journal 4 (1993) pp. 148-74; E. Reichman and Fred Rosner, “The Bone Called Luz,” Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences 51:1 (January, 1996) pp. 52-65; “The Rabbinic Conception of Conception: An Exercise in Fertility,” Tradition 31:1 (Fall 1996) pp. 33-63; “A Tale of Two Stones,” BD’D 5 (Summer 1997) pp. 33-40; “The Impact of Medieval Medicine on Medical Halakha: The Case of Mumia,” in Fred Rosner, ed., Pioneers in Jewish Medical Ethics (Jason Aronson, 1997) pp. 27-52; “Ovarian Transplantation: The Halakhic Precursor to Surrogate Motherhood,” Tradition 33:1 (1998) pp. 31-70.

2. For discussions on innate heat, see C. R. S. Harris, The Heart and the Vascular System in Ancient Greek Medicine (Oxford, 1973), esp. pp. 374-78; Margaret Tallmadge May, Galen on the Usefulness of the Parts of the Body (Ithaca, 1968) pp. 50-54; G. J. Goodfield, The Growth of Scientific Physiology: Physiological Method and the Mechanist-Vitalist Controversy, Illustrated by the Problems of Respiration and Animal Heat (London, 1960); David J. Furley and J. S. Wilkie, Galen on Respiration and the Arteries (Princeton, 1984) pp. 3-46. Regarding the relationship of innate heat to the understanding of fever, see Iain M. Lonie, “Fever Pathology in the Sixteenth Century: Tradition and Innovation,” in W. F. Bynum and V. Nutton, eds., Theories of Fever from Antiquity to the Enlightenment (London, 1981) pp. 19-44.

3. D. J. Furley and J. S. Wilkey, pp. 3-40.

4. It is now accepted as fact that the Hippocratic corpus does not represent the work of one man, but is rather the collection of a group of disparate, and occasionally contradictory, works penned by multiple authors, but related in theme. As a result, since the works of Hippocrates are not unified, it is not always possible to say that there is one Hippocratic theory on a particular topic. D. J. Furley and J. S. Wilkey (pp. 11-14) grapple with this problem in their discussion of the Hippocratic theories of respiration and innate heat.

5. M. T. May, pp. 52-53. More specifically, the heat was thought to reside in the left ventricle. Galen accepted this notion from Hippocrates. See G. E. R. Lloyd, ed., Hippocratic Writings (Middlesex, 1978) p. 349.

6. The heart, in fact, does not have a higher temperature than the rest of the body, but this notion persisted until it was disproved by Alfonso Borelli in the seventeenth century with the use of a thermometer. See M. T. May, p. 53.

7. The mechanism of dissemination throughout the body is itself a matter of debate, as it depends upon how one understands the constitution of the blood vessels and arteries, and the interrelationship between respiration and circulation. As circulation was not clearly understood until the time of Harvey (seventeenth century), the function and identity of the veins, arteries and nerves was not agreed upon. Furthermore, many believed that air passed through the vessels, either in conjunction with or to the exclusion of blood. For extensive discussion of these issues see C. R. S. Harris, D. J. Furley and J. S. Wilkey.

8. M. T. May, p. 51.

9. She’elot u-Teshuvot Hakham Zevi #77.

10. See, for example, M. D. Tendler, Responsa of Rav Moshe Feinstein: Care of the Critically Ill (Hoboken, 1996) p. 75. R. Tendler is sensitive to the medical historical context of the responsum of R. Ashkenazi.

11. See E. Reichman, “The Halakhic Definition of Death in Light of Medical History,” above, n. 3.

12. I. J. Weiss, She’elot u-Teshuvot Minhat Yizhak 9:120.

13. See also Radak to Jeremiah 2:24, where R. Kimhi applies the same physiological explanation to another verse similar to Genesis 2:7.

14. (above, n. 4), pp. 18-19.

15. Guide for the Perplexed 1:40. For the usage in rabbinic literature of the words ruah, neshamah and nefesh, which are plagued with ambiguity and often used interchangeably, see Samuel S. Kottek, “The Seat of the Soul: Contribution to the History of Jewish Medieval Psycho- Physiology,” Clio Medica 13:3-4(1978) pp. 219-46.

16. Commentary on the Torah, Genesis 45:26. Rabbenu Bahya, ad loc, repeats the same interpretation as his teacher, Nachmanides, and uses this physiological explanation of the fainting associated with surprise to explain a passage in Ketubot 62b.

17. While our current understanding of the mechanism of fainting, or syncope, may differ from that of Nachmanides, this does not preclude acceptance of his basic interpretation that Jacob fainted and was revived.

18. See Suessmann Muntner, ed., Rambam: Kitvei Refuah 2 (Jerusalem, 1961). The section devoted to the causes of fainting begins on p. 92, and the relevant passage appears on p. 114, at n. 32. Maimonides makes no reference there to this story of Jacob, but, then again, there are few, if any, biblical or halakhic references in his medical works.

19. Mezudat David on 1 Kings 1:14-15.

20. There is debate amongst the commentaries whether the child had actually died, or whether his condition was so grave that he appeared to be dead but was, in fact, barely alive. See, for example, Radak, ad loc; Maimonides, Guide for the Perplexed 1:42; She’elot u-Teshuvot Hatam Sofer, Yoreh De’ah #338. Targum Yonatan implies that the child may not have died, and Josephus (Antiquities 8, 13:3.325) is explicit in saying that the child’s illness was so severe that he “ceased to breath and seemed to be dead.” This debate has a number of halakhic ramifications. According to rabbinic tradition, Elijah was thought to be the embodiment of Pinhas. As Pinhas was a kohen, it is logical to assume that this distinction would have likewise been conferred upon Elijah. If he was, in fact, a kohen, it would have been forbidden for him to come into contact

INNATE HEAT

with a corpse. How, then, could he have performed the resuscitation? This issue is addressed in She’elot u-Teshuvot ha-Radbaz #2203. Furthermore, this discussion impacts on the halakhic definition of death. See She’elot u-Teshuvot Hatam Sofer, cited above. For a discussion on how an understanding of medical history impacts on the halakhic definition of death, see my “The Halakhic Definition of Death,” above, n. 1.

21. F. Rosner, “Artificial Respiration in Biblical Times,” New York State Journal of Medicine 69:8 (April 15, 1969) pp. 1104-05; Z. Rosen, “Rhinological Aspects of Biblical Resuscitation,” Archives of Otolaryngology 95:5(May, 1972) pp. 488-89; Z. Rosen and J. Davidson, “Respiratory Resuscitation in Ancient Hebrew Sources,” Anesthesia and Analgesia 51:4 (July-August, 1972) pp. 502-05; L. Wislicki, “A Biblical Case of Hypothermia-Resuscitation by Rewarming (Elisha’s Method),” Clio Medica 9:3 (September, 1974) pp. 213-14; R. B. Howard, “. . . And There is Nothing New Under the Sun,” Postgraduate Medicine 65:3(March, 1979) p. 25; J. H. Comroe, Jr., “. . . In Comes the Good Air,” American Review of Respiratory Diseases 119:6 (June, 1979) pp. 1025-31; A. S. Abraham, “Hanshamah Melakhutit bi-Tanakh,” Ha-Ma’ayan 28:3 (Nisan, 5748) pp. 72-76; J. A. Paraskos, “Biblical Accounts of Resuscitation,” Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences 47:3 (July, 1992) pp. 310-21.

22. See Radak on I Kings 17:21 and II Kings 4:34.

23. I intentionally do not identify zara’at with the disease known today as leprosy, or Hanson’s disease, because the biblical zara’at is clearly a disease of a different nature. The bibliography on the exact medical definition of zara’at is extensive and continually growing. See A. D. Rabinowitz and Bezalel Naor, “The Medical Aspects of Zara’at: Selected Bibliography,” Orot 1(1991) pp. 30-32, for a sampling.

24. See their commentaries to II Kings 5:6 and II Kings 5:3 respectively.

25. See his commentary to II Kings 5:6. Translation by the author.

26. See A. J. Brock, trans., Galen: On the Natural Faculties (London, 1916) p. 41. 27. A. L. Peck, trans., Aristotle: Generation of Animals (Cambridge, 1942) pp. 739b, 21-29. For more on the cheese analogy see J. Needham, A History of Embryology (New York, 1959) pp. 26, 50, 64, 66, 76, 82-85; C. R. S. Harris, (above, n. 4) p. 139.

27. She’elot u-Teshuvot ha-Rivash #447.

28. For other examples in biblical exegesis, see Ralbag on II Samuel 2:23 and 20:10, Proverbs 17:22 and 25:25, and Job 31:40; Mezudat David on Job 41:10-11.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR AUTHORS

Detailed Instructions for Authors and journal style

can be found on our Internet website:

http://www.jewishbible.org