Scholars’ views are divided when Rabbi Obadiah began working on his commentary on the Mishna. Did he start it in Italy or only after he had settled in the land of Israel. Rabbi Israel D. Lerner is inclined to accept the latter view. If he would have begun composing the commentary in Italy- he reasons – he would certainly have mentioned it in the letters he wrote soon after his arrival invthe Holy Land. In these letters he tells of his early activities in the Holy City, but there is no word about the commentary. According to Lerner, the commentary was a by-product of Rabbi Obadiah’s teaching Torah in the Holy Land.
The major part of Lerner’s book is devoted to analyses and discussions of Rabbi Obadiah’s magnum opus. One chapter deals with historical information, statements of historical significance and such that reflect contemporary Jewish life and conditions found in the commentary.
Here, perhaps, could have been included Rabbi Obadiah’s remark in the beginning of tractate Ketubbot that “in some communities it is the custom in order to help the poor, to celebrate weddings on a Friday (because then the Shabbat evening Se’uda can also serve as the wedding meal). Comp. Rashi, Mo’ed Katan, 8b “Mishum Bittul…”
Very interesting is the chapter on Rabbi Obadiah’s linguistic contributions. Lerner maintains that Rabbi Obadiah in trying to explain difficult Hebrew or foreign expressions would at times represent them as Notarikin.
In order to be on sure ground in this field, one must of course be very careful to establish that these explanations — which are mostly popular etymologies – have been suggested by Rabbi Obadiah himself and he did not hear them from others or read them in some book. Lerner, indeed, endeavors in some cases to trace the origin of the Notarikon.
In explaining a word in the Mishna (Kerithot 1:3) as a Notarikon, Rabbi Obadiah adds: Kach Matzati (“thus I have found”in some book), i.e. the explanation is not his own. Interpreting the word Sanhedrin (Sotah 9:11)as a Notarikun of Soni’m Hadrat Panim BaDin, he does not add Matzati (I found it) or Shamati (I heard it) yet the explanation is not his. It is found already in Likkutei Maharil (cited by Tiferet Yisrael on Sanhedrin 1:6).
In the same chapter, Lerner writes about the foreign words, especially from Arabic, which language Rabbi Obadiah, seemingly, learned in the Land of Israe –l- mentioned in the commentary.
No less interesting and stimulating is the chapter on the Halachic decisions in the commentary. Here is also discussed Rabbi Obadiah’s wide erudition in Talmudic and rabbinic literature. Demonstrating Rabbi Obadiah’s use of the Midrash, Lerner quotes from the commentary on Chullin 5:3 in which a story found in Bereishit Rabba is referred to. (We may perhaps, add that the Tossafists refer- in connection with said Mishna – to that passage in Bereishit Rabba. See Tossafot Chullin 83a, Kethubut 5a and Avoda Zara 5b.)
In the very valuable chapter, “The Educational Views of Rabbi Obadiah,” Lerner set himself the task to explain why Rabbi Obadiah’s commentary was accepted as a textbook in Yeshivot and other educational institutions, both in the Land of Israel and in the Diaspora, and to collect statements by Rabbi Obadiah dispersed all over the commentary, which reflect what we may call his “educational theories.”
Experience showed that the commentary – because of Rabbi Obadiah’s masterful exposition, could easily be taught and was, in the words of Rabbi Yaakov Hagiz, himself the author of a commentary on the Mishna, the key to enter the field of Halacha. It was an excellent preparation for the study of Talmud. This was the reason, Lerner states, why the commentary was introduced into various houses of learning, as evidenced by the statutes of these institutions, some of which are quoted in the book.
In discussing Rabbi Obadiah’s educational outlook, Lerner also touches upon Rabbi Obadiah’s attitude towards the acquisition of secular knowledge.
(Conclusion next week)
The Jewish Press, August 12, 1988 p. 8D