Commentators:Ibn Ezra's Torah Commentary/1

Ibn Ezra's Torah Commentary

Introduction

Open Text of Commentary

Unique Aspects of the AlHaTorah.org Edition

AlHaTorah.org's edition of Ibn Ezra's initial Torah commentary (authored in Italy, c.1145, and sometimes referred to as "Ibn Ezra's Short Commentary") is unique in that it utilizes many manuscripts (primarily, though not exclusively) of Byzantine provenance,¹ and particularly MS Paris 177, to present a more complete and accurate version of the commentary than previous editions. This new edition is now available in AlHaTorah.org's online Mikraot Gedolot, and it includes:

• Approximately 700² of Ibn Ezra's own updates and additions to his commentary,³ missing from all of the heretofore published editions.⁴ These additions are enclosed in square brackets to enable their ready identification.⁵
• Hundreds of additional textual variants which allow for improved textual readings and facilitate a better understanding of Ibn Ezra's interpretations.⁶
• Many cases of restored text which was missing in earlier editions due either to homeoteleutons (השמטות על ידי הדומות) or censorship of the manuscripts upon which they were based.⁷

Evidence for Ibn Ezra's Updates

In order to establish that the 700 passages (or at least the vast majority of them) found in these manuscripts are, in fact, Ibn Ezra's updates to his commentary, we must demonstrate both that:

• Their presence in these manuscripts results from their being later insertions (הוספות) rather than merely scribal omissions (השמטות) in other manuscripts.
• Their contents were penned by Ibn Ezra himself and not added by a different person.

The evidence for the passages being insertions rather than omissions consists of several factors:⁸

• In virtually all cases, the manuscripts in which the passages are absent read smoothly, and very few cases can be attributed to homeoteleutons⁹ (arguably the most common cause of scribal omission). Had these been simply the product of scribal omissions, we would have expected that the opposite would be true on both counts.
• In many cases, the manuscripts missing these passages instead contain an extra word or phrase, without which the text would not read smoothly.¹⁰ It is difficult to assume that the scribe while making an inadvertent omission also took care to add a word to ensure that the text would still be readable.
• The additional passages are missing in the vast majority of Ibn Ezra manuscripts. For this to be the result of scribal omissions, one would need to postulate that they were all omitted in a very early transcription of the commentary which had an inordinate influence on the commentary's transmission.
• In some cases, the additional passages appear in a location which is close, yet slightly off.¹¹ The most likely explanation for this is that they were originally written as marginal glosses which were then incorporated in the slightly wrong place.
• Of the manuscripts containing the additional passages, most include only some, but not all, of the passages. This would also be more readily explained by the assumption that these were marginal glosses, which were frequently incorporated, but not always.
• Some manuscripts incorporate only parts of the additional passages.¹² This would also be much more easily explained by the assumption that these passages originated as marginal glosses.

The evidence for these passages being Ibn Ezra's own updates also combines a number of factors:¹³

• Self references – Over twenty of the additional passages use first person language (such as "כאשר אמרתי"‎, "וכבר זכרתי"‎, "פירשתיו"‎, "וכבר רמזתי לך"‎, "וכבר הודעתיך") to cross-reference interpretations found in the rest of Ibn Ezra's Torah commentary.¹⁴ Another group of additional passages (also using first person language) cites other commentaries¹⁵ and works¹⁶ of Ibn Ezra. The author of all of these additional passages could only be either Ibn Ezra himself or an impersonator.
• Other cases of first person language – A distinctive example is Devarim 14:1 ("וכן ראינו ברומי רבתא‎").¹⁷
• Acerbic language mocking the opinions cited from other commentators – There are at least ten examples of this in the additional passages.¹⁸ Such remarks are typical of Ibn Ezra, and it would be surprising if a different person adding marginal glosses felt the need to add ad hominem attacks to the commentary.¹⁹ There is also one case²⁰ where the additional passage may reflect a tempering of Ibn Ezra's original critique of an interpretation, as a result of subsequently finding support for it in the Targum Yerushalmi.²¹
• Similarities to Ibn Ezra's Second Commentary – There are a handful of cases in which the additional passages parallel content found in Ibn Ezra's subsequent commentaries on Bereshit and Shemot²² (written in France and commonly referred to as "Ibn Ezra's Long Commentary").²³
• Characteristic features – See below that the additional passages contain certain features that are consistent with Ibn Ezra's exegesis, such as use of Arabic and citations of early Andalusian commentators.
• Require editing of original text – As noted above, there are many cases in which the author of these additional passages felt that he had editorial license to not only add, but also modify (or delete from) the original text, to enable the smooth incorporation of the addition. Such editorial license would be consistent with authorial revision rather than glosses of an external party.
• Citations by others – In several cases, the additional passages are found in the text of Ibn Ezra cited by the צפנת פענח in his supercommentary on Ibn Ezra.²⁴

Some Characteristics of the Additions

Below are some of the salient features of the updates to Ibn Ezra's commentary, almost all of which are consistent with the traits of the original layer of the commentary:

• Sources cited – Aquilas,²⁵ Targum (Onkelos),²⁶ Targum Yerushalmi,²⁷ Targum Yonatan b. Uziel,²⁸ Rabbinic literature,²⁹ R. Saadia,³⁰ Dunash b. Labrat,³¹ R. Yehudah ibn Chayyug,³² R. Yonah ibn Janach,³³ Rashi,³⁴ anonymous commentators.³⁵
• Use of Arabic parallels.³⁶
• Additional prooftexts – This is by far the most common type of addition and it accounts for approximately a quarter of the total.
• Elaboration on prooftexts – There are at least ten cases in which the addition elaborates not on the meaning of the verse itself but on the prooftext cited to support an interpretation.³⁷
• A small number of additions suggest alternatives or contradict the original interpretation.³⁸
• Numerous additions discuss and provide examples for lexical and grammatical phenomenon.³⁹
• Realia – A handful of additions remark on items of historical interest.⁴⁰ Of particular interest is the addition to Devarim 25:9 which records that Ibn Ezra heard a report about the emerging French custom ("ושמענו כי בארצות אדום הנקראין פרנצא"‎)⁴¹ to favor חליצה over יבום and that he strongly opposed this new practice.⁴²
• Other interpretations of general interest – Bereshit 17:14, 22:19, 27:19, 31:7, 31:24, 31:39, 33:10, 38:23, Shemot 21:24, 31:16, 32:29, Vayikra 11:13, Bemidbar 12:16, Bemidbar 15:15, 16:14.

Manuscripts Utilized

AlHaTorah.org's edition of Ibn Ezra's initial Torah commentary utilizes MS Paris 177⁴³ as its base text for the books of Bereshit, Vayikra, Bemidbar, and Devarim.⁴⁴ For the book of Shemot, though, MS Paris 177 contains Ibn Ezra's second commentary (written in France, and commonly referred to as "Ibn Ezra's Long Commentary"), and it thus could not serve as our base text. Additionally, most manuscripts of Ibn Ezra's first Shemot commentary which contain his additions and updates are either very fragmentary or hybrids which conflate the first and second commentaries. Thus, for the book of Shemot, our edition uses MS Paris 182 (the oldest extant textual witness of the commentary) as a base, and supplements it with Ibn Ezra's updates cobbled together from what has survived in various other manuscripts.⁴⁵

The following is a list of the manuscripts utilized in this edition. We gratefully acknowledge the libraries which house them for preserving these texts of Ibn Ezra for posterity:

• Breslau 53 (Saraval 29) – now in Prague National Library
• Cambridge Add. 1014,1 – Cambridge University Library
• Columbia X893/5 (extant on Shemot 13 – Vayikra 25 and missing several chapters in the middle) – Columbia University, New York
• Edition of privately owned manuscript (extant on Shemot 29-34) published by Naftali Ben-Menachem in אוצר יהודי ספרד ד'‏
• Frankfurt 150 – Universitätsbibliothek Johann Christian Senckenberg Frankfurt am Main
• Lutzki 827 – Courtesy of the Library of the Jewish Theological Seminary
• Oxford Or 512 (Neubauer 2423) (extant on Shemot 31-32) – Oxford - Bodleian Library
• Paris 176, 177, 182 – Bibliothèque nationale de France
• St. Petersburg – Evr. I 24, Evr. II A 244/1 – (extant on Shemot 12), Evr. II A 418/05 – (extant on Shemot 27–29) – National Library of Russia
• Vatican ebr.283, Neofiti 2 – Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana
• Vienna Cod. Hebr. 39 (Schwarz #25) – Oesterreichische Nationalbibliothek
• Vienna Beit Midrash LaRabbanim – this manuscript is currently housed in a private collection and we had access to only the excerpts transcribed by Fleischer in the notes to his edition of Shemot HaKatzar

We also express our appreciation to the staff of the Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts for all of their assistance.

¹ Most of the manuscripts which contain Ibn Ezra's updates were written in Byzantine lands.  These include:  MSS Paris 177, Frankfurt 150, Lutzki 827, Cambridge Add. 1014,1, Columbia X893/5, Oxford Or 512, St. Petersburg Evr. I 24, St. Petersburg Evr. II A 244/1.  However, there are two important exceptions which indicate that this recension spread to other lands as well:  MS Vatican ebr. 283 (extant on Shemot only and written in Sephardic script) and MS Vienna 39 (Italian provenance).  [It should also be emphasized that not all Byzantine manuscripts incorporate these updates, and that even some of the ones which do are not fully consistent in this regard.]

² A significant portion of these are small glosses which encompass only a couple of additional words, but many others are full sentences, and some are even larger passages (see the additions to Bereshit 2:9, 36:31, 37:8, 43:30, Shemot 4:23, 21:24, 23:19, 32:1, Bemidbar 12:16, 31:10, Devarim 25:9, 32:14, 32:18).

³ On the phenomenon of the "Open Book" and similar updates of Rashi and Ramban to their commentaries, see Rashi Leipzig 1 and Ramban's Updates.

⁴ The existence of additional unpublished material was first noted by S. M. Schiller-Szinessy, Catalogue of the Hebrew Manuscripts Preserved in the University Library Cambridge (Cambridge, 1876): 121-122 based on his examination of MS Cambridge 1014,1. Variants from this manuscript were later published by W. Bacher in אוצר טוב‎ (1891-3). [Bacher's lists must be used with caution as they include many instances which are not additions, but rather simply omissions in printed editions.]  Subsequently, in the extensive notes to his edition of ספר אבן עזרא לספר שמות‎ (Vienna, 1926), Y. L. Fleischer cited many additions from a manuscript which was then housed in the Vienna Rabbinical Seminary. [Unfortunately, Fleischer's efforts were limited to Sefer Shemot, and we have not been able to ascertain the whereabouts of this manuscript which is apparently now in a private collection.]
Fortunately, though, the use of MS Paris 177 (a far better textual witness than the Cambridge MS), MS Frankfurt 150, MS Vatican 283, and numerous other manuscripts has enabled the current edition to multiply many times over the number of previously discovered additions and to present a more complete picture of this phenomenon.

⁵ The textual apparatus provides information on which manuscripts contain each of them.

⁶ The current edition, though, does not blindly follow the text found in Paris 177 and other Byzantine manuscripts.  In cases of what seem to be obvious scribal errors, this edition presents what appears to be the more correct version found in non-Byzantine manuscripts and notes the variants in the apparatus.

⁷ It is noteworthy that MS Paris 176, despite being the oldest dated manuscript of Ibn Ezra's commentary in existence, is plagued by homeoteleutons.

⁸ Notwithstanding the strength of the arguments below, it is still conceivable that there could be some individual passages which are the result of scribal omissions or editing. See Shemot 3:7 for a possible example.

⁹ Vayikra 23:40 is possibly an example of a rare exception.

¹⁰ See, for example, Bereshit 3:14, 11:6, 31:42, 33:10, Shemot 3:13, 21:25, 23:19, 36:1, Devarim 23:4, 33:25 (2x).

¹¹ Examples are: Bereshit 2:20, 24:59, 25:30, 26:13, 41:29.

¹² See, for example: Bereshit 6:17, 19:19, 21:11, 23:13, 24:11, Vayikra 1:14.

¹³ Here, too, these factors provide evidence for the general corpus, and do not rule out the existence of outliers which could have been added by someone else.

¹⁴ See Bereshit 6:17, 14:10, 26:13, 37:2, 37:17, 40:8, 49:25, Shemot 3:13, 19:4, 22:5, 32:6, 32:29, Vayikra 4:3, 13:45, Bemidbar 12:6, 12:11, 31:14, Devarim 4:34, 11:7, 11:27, 14:11, 29:9. An additional case of Bereshit 19:5 references another addition found in Bereshit 3:9.

¹⁵ See the additions to Shemot 23:20 (Kohelet), Shemot 25:31 (Daniel), Shemot 32:4 (Yeshayahu), Bemidbar 6:13 (Yechezkel – not extant, but referred to also in the main layer of the commentary on Shemot 28:41), Bemidbar 31:2 (Kohelet). [See also the addition to Devarim 24:6 which notes that the commentary on Iyyov was written in Rome.]

¹⁶ Bemidbar 31:2 (Sefer Mozenayim), Devarim 32:18 (Translation of Ibn Chayyug's Grammatical works).

¹⁷ See also Bereshit 11:3, 20:16, 49:12, Shemot 17:12.

¹⁸ See Bereshit 6:16, 19:16, 36:31, 37:8, 38:9, 41:13, Shemot 4:23, 14:28, 32:1, Devarim 33:25. See also Bereshit 2:2, 2:23, 27:19, 33:10, 41:13, Shemot 29:2, Devarim 10:6.

¹⁹ There are also cases where the additional passages agree with previously mentioned opinions. See Bereshit 41:8, Shemot 24:15, Devarim 25:5, 28:59, 28:68. These also are much more likely to be from Ibn Ezra himself.

²⁰ See Bereshit 49:12.

²¹ See below regarding the scarcity of Ibn Ezra's citations from the Targum Yerushalmi.

²² See Bereshit 3:23, 11:7, Shemot 1:13, 4:23, 16:23.

²³ These passages are merely similar in content but are not identical with the passages from the Second Commentary. They should not be confused with the abundance of cases in which manuscripts and printings conflated the First and Second Commentaries.

²⁴ See Bereshit 5:24, Shemot 2:10, 3:7, 4:23, 18:9, 20:22, 23:14, 32:1, 32:4, 32:6.

²⁵ Cited in two additions: Bereshit 15:2 and Vayikra 13:55, but nowhere else in the main layer of the commentary.

²⁶ The Targum is cited in the additions to Bereshit 5:24, 49:5, Bemidbar 4:20. See also Bereshit 24:63 "ויפה תרגמו הזקנים".

²⁷ Cited in the addition to Bereshit 49:12, and only once in the original layer of the commentary in Vayikra 26:2.

²⁸ Cited only in the addition to Bereshit 36:24.

²⁹ Citations of the Mishna and Gemara are found in the additions to Bereshit 25:30, Shemot 21:25, 22:2, 25:29, Bemidbar 31:8, Devarim 23:19, 23:26, 28:59. Other Midrashim are cited in the additions to: Bereshit 22:19, 30:14, 36:32, Shemot 14:28, 24:14, 32:1, Devarim 23:24, 28:68.

³⁰ Cited in the additions to: Bereshit 23:6, 25:18, 43:30, Shemot 3:13 (ספר יצירה), 21:10, Devarim 26:3.

³¹ Cited only once, in the addition to Bereshit 25:24.

³² Cited in the addition to Devarim 32:18.

³³ Cited in the addition to Devarim 29:18.

³⁴ Cited in the addition to Shemot 24:14.

³⁵ See the additions to: Bereshit 37:8, 38:23, Vayikra 4:22, 11:6, 11:13, 19:10, Bemidbar 12:16, 16:14, Devarim 28:26, 28:39, 32:14, 32:15, 32:38.

³⁶ See the additions to: Bereshit 14:23, 23:13, Shemot 1:13, Vayikra 2:1, 11:6, 11:13-15, Bemidbar 12:1, Devarim 32:14.

³⁷ See: Bereshit 2:9, 2:20, 2:21, 2:22, 3:6, 3:17, 27:19, 49:11, Vayikra 8:23, Devarim 5:3.

³⁸ See Bereshit 14:10 (vs. 26:18), 41:57, 48:11, Shemot 14:10, Vayikra 7:9?, 11:16, Devarim 26:12, 29:18, 32:36. See also the additions to Bereshit 15:10, Devarim 4:1 which clarify/modify the original interpretation.

³⁹ See, for example, the additions to Bereshit 9:5, 29:20, Vayikra 15:31 which all explain the ב'‎ as meaning בעבור, and the additions to Bereshit 26:20, 30:20, Vayikra 1:15, Devarim (27:9), 32:34, 33:25 which all give examples of hapax legomena.

⁴⁰ See the additions to the Introduction to Bereshit (regarding the style of "סופרי ישמעאלים"), Bereshit 21:14, 24:59, 41:16, Devarim 6:13, 25:9.

⁴¹ The continuation of Ibn Ezra's addition implies that he was not completely sure of the veracity of the report ("ואם אמת איננו נכון").  From this remark it is clear that Ibn Ezra's updates to his commentary were written before he arrived in France.

⁴² Cf. the newly published interpretation of R. Yosef Kara which makes clear that in Mainz and Worms of his time, יבום was still being practiced.

⁴³ This manuscript dates from 1308, and is one of the oldest surviving manuscripts of Ibn Ezra's commentary.

⁴⁴ Almost all of the additions to these four Chumashim contained in this edition can be found in MS Paris 177.

⁴⁵ These are: MS Vatican 283, MS Frankfurt 150 on Shemot 1–5, MS St. Petersburg 244 on part of Shemot 12, MS Columbia X893 on Shemot 13:18 – 17, parts of 21–22, 23–27, 28–30, and 34–40, the transcription published by N. Ben-Menachem in אוצר יהודי ספרד ד'‏ of a MS from a private collection on Shemot 29–34, MS St. Petersburg 418 on Shemot 27–29, and MS Oxford Or 512 on Shemot 31-32.