Why did the author of Metzudat Tzion never write an explanation of difficult words in the chumash, as he did for most of the Nach? There are hard words in the chumash that require explanation even for a fluent Hebrew speaker.

  • Welcome, Matthew, to Mi Yodeya, and thanks for your question, one I've wondered about also. I hope you stick around and enjoy the site. Please consider registering your account, which will give you access to more of the site's features. – msh210 Jul 31 '14 at 18:30
  • For that matter it was not written on Rus, Eicha, and Esther either. Perhaps he started with Nach and never got to complete it. – Gershon Gold Jul 31 '14 at 18:39
  • possible duplicate of Metzudat Tzion on the Torah – Gershon Gold Jul 31 '14 at 18:45
  • Thing is I have a copy of מקראות קטנות at home which is like a smaller version of מקראות גדולת at home and does seem to have Metzudat Tzion commentaries for Rus eicha and the Megillah under the name of בית מצודת ציון unless its not actually the commentary of Metzudat Tzion – Matthew Jul 31 '14 at 18:48
  • @Matthew it's not. – msh210 Jul 31 '14 at 18:57

As explained in the source referenced here he started with Navi due to the poverty of a good collection of Mefarshim, Rashi on Nach is a more advanced pirush that doesn't explain the words the way his Pirush on the Torah does and there was a general lack of expert knowledge on Nach to learn from (I would say that part hasn't improved).

So in other words, he focused on Naviim and Kesuvim because he saw that as in the most need. He never finished with Nach, so going back to doing the same on the Torah never happened, if the author would have found it worthwhile.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .