Th e Pentateuch as Scripture and the Challenge of Biblical Criticism 215Hoff mann’s commentaries on Leviticus and Deuteronomy (a commen-
tary on Genesis also appeared in Hebrew) work out his approach to the
Pentateuch. As with rabbinic literature, he was strictly philological: the
grammar and stylistic conventions of the Hebrew language were the prime
tools of exegesis, and forced or fanciful interpretations were avoided. Yet,
because he was a priori committed not only to the integrity of the Penta-
teuch and the incorruptibility of its text but also to a direct correspondence
between the Pentateuch and Jewish law as it had crystallized in rabbinic
times, the utilization of philological exegesis was not objective but rather
directed at predetermined aims. As he states in the introduction to his
commentary on Leviticus, the task of a commentator is generally tripartite:
to determine what the text is saying (content), to explain how it is saying
it (form), and to elucidate the relationship between the two. In the case of
the Torah, however, the task is only twofold, since the content is already
known. What the text means is what the rabbis have already determined it
means; the task of the commentator is merely to show that this rabbinically
determined meaning is in fact the sole, literarily and grammatically correct
meaning and that the text as it stands is the best possible way of convey-
ing it.
Hoff mann, like some of his earlier rabbinic counterparts, signals a de-
parture from traditional Jewish learning. Medieval commentators would
simply have admitted that the text seems to be saying one thing and the
Talmudic sages interpreted it to mean something else — that is, peshat and
derash are two separate categories. With the universal acceptance of philo-
logical norms, it became the order of the day to demonstrate that the rab-
binic derash is in fact the peshat. Th ough the results of this approach were
oft en forced or at least convoluted, Hoff mann proff ered sound philological
insights into the highly nuanced style of biblical writing. Th e fact that Hoff -
mann applied himself to the legal books of the Torah and not to its narra-
tive portions is itself a major step forward, and his are still among the most
precise and detailed commentaries on the legal texts ever written.
Hoff mann’s expertise in rabbinic literature, and in particular in the fi ne
points of midrash halacha, enabled him to include in his commentaries de-
tailed, analytical surveys of the history and logic of rabbinic and medieval
interpretation. Th ese too endowed his commentaries with lasting value.
Th ey remain the clearest and most comprehensive tool for the student in-
terested in how the Written Torah was understood by the talmudic Sages.
Th e second facet of Hoff mann’s response to the critical study of the Pen-
tateuch is also a direct outgrowth of his expertise in Jewish law. Hoff mann