I just recently discovered two interesting commentaries on the chumash on sefaria

  1. Tur haaroch
  2. Bartenura on the chumash

I guess my question is why havent I seen them before.

I have never seen either of them in a mikgros gedelos or quoted by artscroll (from what Ive read could be they are quoted somewhere else) etc..

Thanks for the feedback .Apologies I did not mean to question these great torah scholars or any of there works .

I guess I would like to know why I haven't seen them or anyone ever quote them?

Better why are they not quoted often in explaining difficulties in rashi or ramban on chumash?


  • 2
    I've seen them and I've seen people quote them... – רבות מחשבות May 13 '18 at 20:12
  • 2
    The Tur's commentary is primarily a summary of the Ramban. If you use Chavel's edition of Ramban, you will see it quoted. Bartenura's commentary is a commentary on Rashi. If you use Artscroll's Rashi Chumash, you will see it quoted – wfb May 13 '18 at 21:02
  • Ok Thanks for the feedback I changed the question . If you think its a bad question its alright I can delete it dont mind. New question why havent seen these commentaries quoted more? – gimp770 May 13 '18 at 22:18
  • @wfb indeed, the Tur himself writes that, IIRC – רבות מחשבות May 14 '18 at 1:49
  • You can find them at the back of the Mikraoth Gedoloth, usually. – Danny Schoemann May 14 '18 at 9:53

The standard Baal HaTurim in the Mikraot Gedolot Chumash is just the Gematriot the he wrote of, but he actually did write much more. I've heard that the publishers had room for an additional small commentary so they just put the extra parts of the Tur's commentary in and not the whole thing. See here. I've seen it on many a Beit Midrash bookshelf.

The Bartenura's commentary is known as עמר נקא. I've seen it quoted here and there.

| improve this answer | |
  • Personally I feel the Baal Haturim shouldn't be printed in "minimal" chumashim. His gematrios indicate relationships between concepts, but are not that useful without further development. (Which is probably what the Tur intended for people to do on their own, but that doesn't change the fact that the Baal Haturim is less useful than the Ramban or Ibn Ezra for the average person.) – Heshy May 13 '18 at 21:15

Yes, they are both accepted as mainstream. They both appear in some editions of Mikra’ot Gadolot.

The Bartenura commentary, for example, appears in the Avraham Yitzchok Friedmann Mikra’ot Gadolot.

Some additions have an abridged version of the Tur commentary.

The complete version is also published as Ba’al HaTurim HaShalem. It appears in Sefer Chitas published by Kehot.

Like is indicated in the link to the word here in MDjava’s answer showing the photo of the summary to the separately published Ba’al HaTurim HaShalem, this is comprised of both the abridged commentary and the portion that was removed and which is called HaTur HaAruch. It states they were intended to be printed as a single commentary.

| improve this answer | |
  • 2
    בעל הטורים השלם is not טור הארוך – b a May 13 '18 at 21:10
  • 2
    There is no link in the OP, and (if my memory serves) the בעל הטורים השלם in Chitas is not טור הארוך – b a May 13 '18 at 21:50
  • @ba I thought so but didn't know for sure. – רבות מחשבות May 14 '18 at 1:50
  • There was never a link in the OP. If you are thinking about the link in MDjava's answer, the title is פירוש הטור השלם על התורה. This doesn't change the fact that the question has nothing to do with בעל הטורים השלם. If you want to check, compare the version in your Chitas with טור הארוך and see for yourself if they are the same – b a May 14 '18 at 8:36

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