Difference between revisions of "Commentators:R. Avraham ibn Ezra/0"

From AlHaTorah.org
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
Line 60: Line 60:
 
</subcategory>
 
</subcategory>
 
<subcategory>Works
 
<subcategory>Works
<p>Ibn Ezra was a prolific writer, leaving behind many works in a variety of fields from poetry to astronomy:<fn>The following is not an exhaustive list. For a comprehensive listing of Ibn Ezra's scholarly works and their dates of composition, see S. Sela and G. Freudenthal, "Abraham Ibn Ezra's Scholarly Writing: A Chronological Listing", Aleph 6 (2006): 13-55.</fn></p>
+
<p>Ibn Ezra was a prolific writer, leaving behind many works in a variety of fields from poetry to astronomy:<fn>The following is not an exhaustive list. For a comprehensive listing of Ibn Ezra's scholarly works and their dates of composition, see S. Sela and G. Freudenthal, "Abraham Ibn Ezra's Scholarly Writing: A Chronological Listing", Aleph 6 (2006): 13-55.</fn></p><ul>
<ul>
 
 
<li><b>Biblical commentaries</b> –</li>
 
<li><b>Biblical commentaries</b> –</li>
 
<ul>
 
<ul>
Line 76: Line 75:
 
<li><b>Grammar </b>– Ibn Ezra wrote several grammatical works including<b>:</b> <fn>Ed. M. Wolinsky (Berlin, 1923).</fn>ספר מאזנים, ספר צחות<fn>Ed. G. H. Lipmann (Furth, 1827).</fn>, שפת יתר,<fn>Ed. G. H. Lipmann (Frankfurt, 1843).</fn> שפה ברורה<fn>Ed. G. H. Lipmann (Furth 1839)</fn>, and יסוד דקדוק<fn>Ed. Aloni (Jerusalem, 1975).</fn>.&#160; He also translated several works of R. Yehuda ibn Hayyuj into Hebrew.</li>
 
<li><b>Grammar </b>– Ibn Ezra wrote several grammatical works including<b>:</b> <fn>Ed. M. Wolinsky (Berlin, 1923).</fn>ספר מאזנים, ספר צחות<fn>Ed. G. H. Lipmann (Furth, 1827).</fn>, שפת יתר,<fn>Ed. G. H. Lipmann (Frankfurt, 1843).</fn> שפה ברורה<fn>Ed. G. H. Lipmann (Furth 1839)</fn>, and יסוד דקדוק<fn>Ed. Aloni (Jerusalem, 1975).</fn>.&#160; He also translated several works of R. Yehuda ibn Hayyuj into Hebrew.</li>
 
<li><b>Astronomy, mathematics and more</b>–<b>&#160;&#160;</b> Ibn Ezra wrote many scientific works including (but not limited to): ספר המספר, טעמי הלוחות, כלי נחושת, ספר האחד, ראשית חכמה, ספר הטעמים, ספר המולדות,ספר המאורות, ספר העיבור and אגדת השבת.</li>
 
<li><b>Astronomy, mathematics and more</b>–<b>&#160;&#160;</b> Ibn Ezra wrote many scientific works including (but not limited to): ספר המספר, טעמי הלוחות, כלי נחושת, ספר האחד, ראשית חכמה, ספר הטעמים, ספר המולדות,ספר המאורות, ספר העיבור and אגדת השבת.</li>
</ul>
+
</ul><ul>
<ul>
 
 
<li><b>Rabbinics</b> – No Talmudic novellae or Halakhic codes of Ibn Ezra are extant.&#160; There is, though, one citation that might testify to his having written on the Talmud.&#160; In his introduction to his commentary on Megillat Esther, R. Zecharyah b. Saruq writes, "ואנכי ראיתי חדושי הראב"ע מסכת קידושין והם בתכלית הדקות והאימות".</li>
 
<li><b>Rabbinics</b> – No Talmudic novellae or Halakhic codes of Ibn Ezra are extant.&#160; There is, though, one citation that might testify to his having written on the Talmud.&#160; In his introduction to his commentary on Megillat Esther, R. Zecharyah b. Saruq writes, "ואנכי ראיתי חדושי הראב"ע מסכת קידושין והם בתכלית הדקות והאימות".</li>
 
<li><b>Philosophy / Jewish thought</b> – Ibn Ezra's philosophical views can be found scattered throughout his Torah commentaries, but he also wrote several works which heavily focused on such issues. His work, יסוד מורא וסוד התורה, discusses the rationale behind Biblical commandments.<fn>Despite this goal of providing rationalizations, it is important to note that Ibn Ezra emphasizes that observance of the commandments should not be conditional on understanding.&#160; He compares a person who refuses to observe the laws until he knows the reasoning behind them to a child who refuses to eat bread until he understands how the ground is plowed, the grain planted, the flour sifted, or the dough kneaded and baked. "The correct thing for a child to do is eat normally and, as he grows, ask a little at a time until all of his questions are answered" (Yesod Mora VeSod HaTorah 8:1).</fn>&#160; His&#160;ערוגת המזימה פרדס החכמה deals with the existence of God, while ספר השם discusses the names of God.&#160;</li>
 
<li><b>Philosophy / Jewish thought</b> – Ibn Ezra's philosophical views can be found scattered throughout his Torah commentaries, but he also wrote several works which heavily focused on such issues. His work, יסוד מורא וסוד התורה, discusses the rationale behind Biblical commandments.<fn>Despite this goal of providing rationalizations, it is important to note that Ibn Ezra emphasizes that observance of the commandments should not be conditional on understanding.&#160; He compares a person who refuses to observe the laws until he knows the reasoning behind them to a child who refuses to eat bread until he understands how the ground is plowed, the grain planted, the flour sifted, or the dough kneaded and baked. "The correct thing for a child to do is eat normally and, as he grows, ask a little at a time until all of his questions are answered" (Yesod Mora VeSod HaTorah 8:1).</fn>&#160; His&#160;ערוגת המזימה פרדס החכמה deals with the existence of God, while ספר השם discusses the names of God.&#160;</li>
Line 90: Line 88:
 
<li><b>Peshat and Derash</b> – Ibn Ezra distinguishes between the authority he grants the interpretations of the Sages in legal and narrative material, finding their words binding with regards to the former but not the latter.<fn>This distinction is laid out already in his <a href="IbnEzraBereshitLexicalCommentaryIntroduction" data-aht="source">introduction</a> to Torah (Second Commentary), where he writes that he plans&#160; "לבאר כל כתוב כמשפטו, ודקדוקו ופשוטו / רק במצות ובחקים אסמוך על קדמונינו". He then elaborates, exclaiming that "heaven forbid" that he would ever explain against the Sages, "הרבים ונכבדים בחכמתם ומעשיהם", but notes that this is only true with regards to mitzvot. Elsewhere, "בכתוב שאין שם מצוה", he feels no compunction to follow his predecessors, "ומהשם לבדו אירא, ולא אשא פנים בתורה". See, similarly, his <a href="IbnEzraBereshitFirstCommentaryIntroduction" data-aht="source">introduction</a> to the first commentary: "ובעבור הדרש, דרך הפשט איננה סרה / כי שבעים פנים לתורה / רק בתורות ובמשפטים ובחוקים / מצאנו שני טעמים לפסוקים / והטעם האחד כנגד המעתיקים, שהיו כולם צדיקים / נשען על אמתם בלי ספק בידים חזקים".<br/>Ibn Ezra's distinction is rooted in his strong desire to explain the text according to its simple sense, using the rules of grammar and logic, on the one hand, and his need to uphold the Oral Law and opinions of the Sages in the face of Karaites who rejected these. Unlike Rashbam, he did not feel that he was at liberty to explain legal sections of Torah against the Midrash, for that would fuel the arguments of his opponents and lead many to question or reject the legal rulings of the Sages.</fn> In his <a href="IbnEzraBereshitLexicalCommentaryIntroduction" data-aht="source">introduction</a> to his second commentary, he provides three criteria for determining when one may reject or reinterpret the simple sense of a text: if the explanation goes against reason, contradicts another verse, or disputes tradition ("קבלה" / Oral Law).<fn>He writes, "שאם מצאנו באחד הנזכרים, דבר שיכחיש אחד משלשה דברים, כי האחד שקול הדעת הישרה, או כתוב מכחיש אחר בדרך סברא, או יכחיש הקבלה הנגמרה, אז נחשוב לתקן הכל כפי יכלתינו, בדרך משל או תוספות אות או מלה על דרך לשונינו". Ibn Ezra views "הקבלה הנגמרה" as halakhic traditions rather than homiletic expositions of the Sages.&#160; Ibn Ezra's criteria are heavily influenced by R. Saadia Gaon before him who claims that one must accept the simple sense of scripture, unless it refutes sensory perception, logic, another text, or tradition (החוש, השכל, הכתוב, והקבלה).</fn>&#160; It is these criteria which inform Ibn Ezra's distinct attitude towards aggadic and halakhic Midrashim:</li>
 
<li><b>Peshat and Derash</b> – Ibn Ezra distinguishes between the authority he grants the interpretations of the Sages in legal and narrative material, finding their words binding with regards to the former but not the latter.<fn>This distinction is laid out already in his <a href="IbnEzraBereshitLexicalCommentaryIntroduction" data-aht="source">introduction</a> to Torah (Second Commentary), where he writes that he plans&#160; "לבאר כל כתוב כמשפטו, ודקדוקו ופשוטו / רק במצות ובחקים אסמוך על קדמונינו". He then elaborates, exclaiming that "heaven forbid" that he would ever explain against the Sages, "הרבים ונכבדים בחכמתם ומעשיהם", but notes that this is only true with regards to mitzvot. Elsewhere, "בכתוב שאין שם מצוה", he feels no compunction to follow his predecessors, "ומהשם לבדו אירא, ולא אשא פנים בתורה". See, similarly, his <a href="IbnEzraBereshitFirstCommentaryIntroduction" data-aht="source">introduction</a> to the first commentary: "ובעבור הדרש, דרך הפשט איננה סרה / כי שבעים פנים לתורה / רק בתורות ובמשפטים ובחוקים / מצאנו שני טעמים לפסוקים / והטעם האחד כנגד המעתיקים, שהיו כולם צדיקים / נשען על אמתם בלי ספק בידים חזקים".<br/>Ibn Ezra's distinction is rooted in his strong desire to explain the text according to its simple sense, using the rules of grammar and logic, on the one hand, and his need to uphold the Oral Law and opinions of the Sages in the face of Karaites who rejected these. Unlike Rashbam, he did not feel that he was at liberty to explain legal sections of Torah against the Midrash, for that would fuel the arguments of his opponents and lead many to question or reject the legal rulings of the Sages.</fn> In his <a href="IbnEzraBereshitLexicalCommentaryIntroduction" data-aht="source">introduction</a> to his second commentary, he provides three criteria for determining when one may reject or reinterpret the simple sense of a text: if the explanation goes against reason, contradicts another verse, or disputes tradition ("קבלה" / Oral Law).<fn>He writes, "שאם מצאנו באחד הנזכרים, דבר שיכחיש אחד משלשה דברים, כי האחד שקול הדעת הישרה, או כתוב מכחיש אחר בדרך סברא, או יכחיש הקבלה הנגמרה, אז נחשוב לתקן הכל כפי יכלתינו, בדרך משל או תוספות אות או מלה על דרך לשונינו". Ibn Ezra views "הקבלה הנגמרה" as halakhic traditions rather than homiletic expositions of the Sages.&#160; Ibn Ezra's criteria are heavily influenced by R. Saadia Gaon before him who claims that one must accept the simple sense of scripture, unless it refutes sensory perception, logic, another text, or tradition (החוש, השכל, הכתוב, והקבלה).</fn>&#160; It is these criteria which inform Ibn Ezra's distinct attitude towards aggadic and halakhic Midrashim:</li>
 
<ul>
 
<ul>
<li><b>Narrative material</b> – According to Ibn Ezra, since aggadic interpretations are not binding (i.e. they don't fall under the realm of "קבלה"), if these do not accord with another verse<fn>For example, see Ibn Ezra First Commentary Bereshit 11:29 where he dismisses the aggadic position that Avraham rather than Sarah was barren, pointing out that this is "היפך הכתוב", contradicting verses which present Avraham as bearing Yishmael or the sons of Keturah.&#160; For other examples, see First Commentary Bereshit 19:12, 22:19, 24:2, 25:1, 39:6, First Commentary Shemot 24:14, Second Commentary Shemot 14:30.&#160; <br/>There are also many cases where Ibn Ezra will reject an interpretation which goes against "הכתוב" in the sense of not working with the grammar or context of the verse itself (but not because it contradicts another verse).&#160; See, for example Ibn Ezra Devarim 26:5.</fn> or contradict logic,<fn>For examples, see Ibn Ezra First Commentary Bereshit 22:6-8 where he dismisses the Sages' opinion that Yitzchak was 37 at the Akeidah, noting that if this were true his role would have been greater than that of Avraham as he went willingly to be sacrificed, and if so he should have been rewarded as well.&#160; He similarly dismisses opinions that he was a young child, noting that if so he would&#160; not have been able to carry the wood.&#160;&#160; For other examples, see First Commentary Bereshit 31:19, 38:1, 46:27, Second Commentary Bereshit 11:28, Second Commentary Shemot 7:24, 18:21, 20:1, and 25:5.</fn> they might be rejected.&#160; Nonetheless, sometimes Ibn Ezra will cautiously add "but if it is a tradition, we will accept it".<fn>See, for instance, his First Commentary Bereshit 11:29, 22:6-8, Second Commentary Bereshit 11:28, Second Commentary Shemot 1:15,15:22, 25:5, 25:18, 26:18-28, Yeshayahu 1:1 and First Commentary to Amos 5:25.&#160; In many of these cases Ibn Ezra uses language similar to&#160; "ואם קבלה היא... נסמוך על הקבלה."</fn>&#160; Elsewhere, he might maintain that the Midrash is correct in essence, but not meant to be taken at face value.<fn>Ibn Ezra compares midrashic interpretations to "clothing for the body", viewing them as simply an adornment which was never intended to capture the essential meaning of the verse, but to be an additional layer on top.&#160; Sometimes, a midrash might add a deeper, secret meaning to the text and sometimes it might come to comfort or strengthen the needy. [See Ibn Ezra's Introduction to <a href="IbnEzraEikhahLexicalCommentaryIntroduction" data-aht="source">Eikhah</a>: מהם חידות וסודות ומשלים גבוהים עד שחקים, ומהם להרויח לבות נלאות בפרקים עמוקים, ומהם לאמץ נכשלים ולמלאות הריקים.]<br/>Thus, for instance, according to Ibn Ezra the Rabbinic statement that that God showed Moses the knot of the tefillin is not to be taken according to its plain meaning. "These words (of the sages) are correct. However, its meaning is not in accordance with that of the wise men of this generation who interpret the Rabbinic statement literally. On the contrary, this has a deeply hidden secret meaning."</fn>&#160; There are also instances, though, where Ibn Ezra will not only reject a Midrashic interpretation but even belittle the very question it is asking, dismissing it as unnecessary.<fn>See, for example, First Commentary Bereshit 5:29 (where he mocks those who question who Kayin or Shet married), 10:8 (where he notes that there is no need to look into the meaning of various names) or 29:17 (where he wonders why some question why Leah's eyes were "dim", noting that the question assumes that all people need be created alike).</fn></li>
+
<li><b>Narrative material</b> – According to Ibn Ezra, since aggadic interpretations are not binding (i.e. they don't fall under the realm of "קבלה"), if these do not accord with another verse<fn>For example, see <a href="IbnEzraBereshitFirstCommentary11-29" data-aht="source">Bereshit First Commentary 11:29</a> where Ibn Ezra dismisses the aggadic position that Avraham rather than Sarah was barren, pointing out that this is "היפך הכתוב", contradicting verses which present Avraham as bearing Yishmael or the sons of Keturah.&#160; For other examples, see: <a href="IbnEzraBereshitFirstCommentary19-12" data-aht="source">Bereshit First Commentary 19:12</a>, <a href="IbnEzraBereshitFirstCommentary22-19" data-aht="source">22:19</a>, <a href="IbnEzraBereshitFirstCommentary24-2" data-aht="source">24:2</a>, <a href="IbnEzraBereshitFirstCommentary25-1" data-aht="source">25:1</a>,<a href="IbnEzraBereshitFirstCommentary39-6" data-aht="source">39:6</a>, <a href="IbnEzraShemotFirstCommentary24-14" data-aht="source">Shemot First Commentary 24:14</a>, <a href="IbnEzraShemotSecondCommentary14-30" data-aht="source">Shemot Second Commentary 14:30</a><br/>There are also many cases where Ibn Ezra will reject an interpretation which goes against "הכתוב" in the sense of not working with the grammar or context of the verse itself (but not because it contradicts another verse).&#160; See, for example, <a href="IbnEzraDevarim26-5" data-aht="source">Devarim 26:5</a></fn> or contradict logic,<fn>For examples, see <a href="IbnEzraBereshitFirstCommentary22-6" data-aht="source">Bereshit First Commentary 22:6</a> where Ibn Ezra dismisses the Sages' opinion that Yitzchak was 37 at the Akeidah, noting that if this were true his role would have been greater than that of Avraham as he went willingly to be sacrificed, and if so he should have been rewarded as well.&#160; He similarly dismisses opinions that he was a young child, noting that if so he would&#160; not have been able to carry the wood.&#160;&#160; For other examples, see <a href="IbnEzraBereshitFirstCommentary31-19" data-aht="source">Bereshit First Commentary 31:19</a>, <a href="IbnEzraBereshitFirstCommentary38-1" data-aht="source">38:1</a>, <a href="IbnEzraBereshitFirstCommentary46-27" data-aht="source">46:27</a>, <a href="IbnEzraBereshitSecondCommentary11-28" data-aht="source">Bereshit Second Commentary 11:28</a>, <a href="IbnEzraShemotSecondCommentary7-24" data-aht="source">Shemot Second Commentary 7:24</a>, <a href="IbnEzraShemotSecondCommentary18-21" data-aht="source">18:21</a>, <a href="IbnEzraShemotSecondCommentary20-1" data-aht="source">20:1</a>, and <a href="IbnEzraShemotSecondCommentary25-5" data-aht="source">25:5</a>.</fn> they might be rejected.&#160; Nonetheless, sometimes Ibn Ezra will cautiously add "but if it is a tradition, we will accept it".<fn>See, for instance, his <a href="IbnEzraBereshitFirstCommentary11-29" data-aht="source">Bereshit First Commentary 11:29</a>, <a href="IbnEzraBereshitFirstCommentary22-6" data-aht="source">22:6</a>, <a href="IbnEzraBereshitSecondCommentary11-28" data-aht="source">Bereshit Second Commentary 11:28</a>, <a href="IbnEzraShemotSecondCommentary1-15" data-aht="source">Shemot Second Commentary 1:15</a>,<a href="IbnEzraShemotSecondCommentary15-22" data-aht="source">15:22</a>, <a href="IbnEzraShemotSecondCommentary25-5" data-aht="source">25:5</a>, <a href="IbnEzraShemotSecondCommentary25-18" data-aht="source">25:18</a>, <a href="IbnEzraShemotSecondCommentary26-18-28" data-aht="source">26:18-28</a>,&#160;<a href="IbnEzraYeshayahu1-1" data-aht="source">Yeshayahu 1:1</a> and <a href="IbnEzraAmosFirstCommentary5-25" data-aht="source">Amos First Commentary 5:25</a>.&#160; In many of these cases Ibn Ezra uses language similar to&#160; "ואם קבלה היא... נסמוך על הקבלה."</fn>&#160; Elsewhere, he might maintain that the Midrash is correct in essence, but not meant to be taken at face value.<fn>Ibn Ezra compares midrashic interpretations to "clothing for the body", viewing them as simply an adornment which was never intended to capture the essential meaning of the verse, but to be an additional layer on top.&#160; Sometimes, a midrash might add a deeper, secret meaning to the text and sometimes it might come to comfort or strengthen the needy. [See Ibn Ezra's Introduction to <a href="IbnEzraEikhahLexicalCommentaryIntroduction" data-aht="source">Eikhah</a>: מהם חידות וסודות ומשלים גבוהים עד שחקים, ומהם להרויח לבות נלאות בפרקים עמוקים, ומהם לאמץ נכשלים ולמלאות הריקים.]<br/>Thus, for instance, according to Ibn Ezra the Rabbinic statement that that God showed Moses the knot of the tefillin is not to be taken according to its plain meaning. "These words (of the sages) are correct. However, its meaning is not in accordance with that of the wise men of this generation who interpret the Rabbinic statement literally. On the contrary, this has a deeply hidden secret meaning."</fn>&#160; There are also instances, though, where Ibn Ezra will not only reject a Midrashic interpretation but even belittle the very question it is asking, dismissing it as unnecessary.<fn>See, for example, <a href="IbnEzraBereshitFirstCommentary5-29" data-aht="source">Ibn Ezra Bereshit First Commentary 5:29</a> (where he mocks those who question who Kayin or Shet married),&#160;<a href="IbnEzraBereshitFirstCommentary10-8" data-aht="source">10:8</a> (where he notes that there is no need to look into the meaning of various names) or&#160;<a href="IbnEzraBereshitFirstCommentary29-17" data-aht="source">29:17</a> (where he wonders why some question why Leah's eyes were "dim", noting that the question assumes that all people need be created alike).</fn></li>
<li><b>Legal material</b> – With regards to legal material, in contrast, Ibn Ezra will&#160; accept the opinion of the Sages, even if it appears to contradict the simple sense of the verse.<fn>He notes that the validity of the Oral law stands alone and does not stem from how it interprets verses: ודברי הקבלה חזקים, ואינם צריכים חיזוק (Shemot 13:9, second commentary)</fn>&#160; In such cases, he often suggests that the verse is being used simply as an "אסמכתא", a hook to remind one of the law.<fn>He writes, "כי יש מקומות שידרשו בו קדמונינו לזכר ולאסמכתא בעלמא, והם ידעו הפשט כי להם נתנה כל חכמה" (<a href="IbnEzraBereshitLexicalCommentaryIntroduction" data-aht="source">Ibn Ezra Bereshit Lexical Commentary Introduction</a>).&#160; See Yesod Mora 6 similarly, "At times they find clear evidence for their traditions in the Torah; at other times, they find mere supports for their traditions."&#160; For examples where Ibn Ezra suggests that a Midrashic interpretation is not meant to be the simple sense of the verse, and is merely attached to it as a reminder or the like, see Ibn Ezra's Second Commentary Bereshit 1:28, First Commentary Bereshit 16:3,&#160; First Commentary Shemot 12:14, 20:7, 21:8-11 (where he lays out the principle explicitly), Second Commentary Shemot 20:20, 21:8, Vayikra 19:20, 21:2, 22:7 and 23:40.</fn> In other cases he will attempt to show how the understanding of Chazal is really the simple sense of the verses.<fn>See for instance, Second Commentary Shemot 12:5, 12:6, 21:2, 21:24, First Commentary Shemot 23:19, Vayikra 23:11, 23:40, Devarim 25:5.</fn> He notes, too, that if a verse can sustain two different logical interpretations, only one of which accords with that of the Sages,<fn>In this he differs from Rashbam, who is quite willing to accept the validity of a peshat interpretation of a verse which contradicts halakhah. As mentioned above, Ibn Ezra's polemics with the Karaites might have played a role in his stance. It is also possible that the different in outlook between the two relates to the focal point of each scholar's study.&#160; In France, where study of the Oral Law was primary, one was less concerned if any individual interpretation of the text did not accord with halakhah.&#160; For Ibn Ezra, in contrast, the Written Law was the focus, while study and interpretation of the Oral Law was secondary. See M. Lockshin, "Tradition or Context: Two Exegetes Struggle with Peshat", in From Anceint Israel to Modern Judaism: Intellect in Quest of Undertanding Vol II, (Georgia, 1989): 173-186 who elaborates un this point.</fn> the Sages' explanation should be preferred.<fn>See, for example, his comments to Shemot 12:24 (second commentary) where he notes that one might have thought that the words "וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה לְחׇק לְךָ וּלְבָנֶיךָ עַד עוֹלָם" refer to the immediately preceding verse which speaks of the smearing of blood, and that this law should apply to all future generations.&#160; However, he explains, one must rely on the Sages that it refers instead only to the Pesach mentioned earlier. For other examples, see Shemot 13:9 (first commentary), Vayikra 21:2, 25:45, Bemidbar 5:7 or 15:38-39.</fn>&#160; He often speaks of the need to rely on the Sages, noting that otherwise the law cannot be properly determined.<fn>See, for example, the First Commentary Shemot 21:24, Shemot 35:3 (על כן אנחנו צריכים בדברי כל המצות לקבלה ומסורת ותורה שבעל פה), Vayikra 11:8, 12:6, 20:9, 25:30, Devarim 16:7.</fn>&#160; There are, however, also cases where Ibn Ezra's explanations go against halakhah.<fn>See, for instance, his interpretations in Second Commentary Shemot 13:7 and Devarim 25:6. For discussion of such instances, see M. Lockshin, "Tradition or Context", ibid.</fn></li>
+
<li><b>Legal material</b> – With regards to legal material, in contrast, Ibn Ezra will&#160; accept the opinion of the Sages, even if it appears to contradict the simple sense of the verse.<fn>He notes that the validity of the Oral law stands alone and does not stem from how it interprets verses: ודברי הקבלה חזקים, ואינם צריכים חיזוק (<a href="IbnEzraShemotSecondCommentary13-9" data-aht="source">Shemot Second Commentary 13:9</a>)</fn>&#160; In such cases, he often suggests that the verse is being used simply as an "אסמכתא", a hook to remind one of the law.<fn>He writes, "כי יש מקומות שידרשו בו קדמונינו לזכר ולאסמכתא בעלמא, והם ידעו הפשט כי להם נתנה כל חכמה" (<a href="IbnEzraBereshitLexicalCommentaryIntroduction" data-aht="source">Ibn Ezra Bereshit Lexical Commentary Introduction</a>).&#160; See Yesod Mora 6 similarly, "At times they find clear evidence for their traditions in the Torah; at other times, they find mere supports for their traditions."&#160; For examples where Ibn Ezra suggests that a Midrashic interpretation is not meant to be the simple sense of the verse, and is merely attached to it as a reminder or the like, see: <a href="IbnEzraBereshitFirstCommentary16-3" data-aht="source">Bereshit First Commentary 16:3</a>, <a href="IbnEzraBereshitSecondCommentary1-28" data-aht="source">Bereshit Second Commentary 1:28</a>, <a href="IbnEzraShemotFirstCommentary12-14" data-aht="source">Shemot First Commentary 12:14</a>, <a href="IbnEzraShemotFirstCommentary20-7" data-aht="source">Shemot First Commentary 20:7</a>,&#160;<a href="IbnEzraShemotFirstCommentary21-8-11" data-aht="source">21:8-11</a> (where he lays out the principle explicitly), Second Commentary Shemot 20:20, 21:8, Vayikra 19:20, 21:2, 22:7 and 23:40.</fn> In other cases he will attempt to show how the understanding of Chazal is really the simple sense of the verses.<fn>See for instance, Second Commentary Shemot 12:5, 12:6, 21:2, 21:24, First Commentary Shemot 23:19, Vayikra 23:11, 23:40, Devarim 25:5.</fn> He notes, too, that if a verse can sustain two different logical interpretations, only one of which accords with that of the Sages,<fn>In this he differs from Rashbam, who is quite willing to accept the validity of a peshat interpretation of a verse which contradicts halakhah. As mentioned above, Ibn Ezra's polemics with the Karaites might have played a role in his stance. It is also possible that the different in outlook between the two relates to the focal point of each scholar's study.&#160; In France, where study of the Oral Law was primary, one was less concerned if any individual interpretation of the text did not accord with halakhah.&#160; For Ibn Ezra, in contrast, the Written Law was the focus, while study and interpretation of the Oral Law was secondary. See M. Lockshin, "Tradition or Context: Two Exegetes Struggle with Peshat", in From Anceint Israel to Modern Judaism: Intellect in Quest of Undertanding Vol II, (Georgia, 1989): 173-186 who elaborates un this point.</fn> the Sages' explanation should be preferred.<fn>See, for example, his comments to Shemot 12:24 (second commentary) where he notes that one might have thought that the words "וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה לְחׇק לְךָ וּלְבָנֶיךָ עַד עוֹלָם" refer to the immediately preceding verse which speaks of the smearing of blood, and that this law should apply to all future generations.&#160; However, he explains, one must rely on the Sages that it refers instead only to the Pesach mentioned earlier. For other examples, see Shemot 13:9 (first commentary), Vayikra 21:2, 25:45, Bemidbar 5:7 or 15:38-39.</fn>&#160; He often speaks of the need to rely on the Sages, noting that otherwise the law cannot be properly determined.<fn>See, for example, the First Commentary Shemot 21:24, Shemot 35:3 (על כן אנחנו צריכים בדברי כל המצות לקבלה ומסורת ותורה שבעל פה), Vayikra 11:8, 12:6, 20:9, 25:30, Devarim 16:7.</fn>&#160; There are, however, also cases where Ibn Ezra's explanations go against halakhah.<fn>See, for instance, his interpretations in Second Commentary Shemot 13:7 and Devarim 25:6. For discussion of such instances, see M. Lockshin, "Tradition or Context", ibid.</fn></li>
 
</ul>
 
</ul>
 
</ul>
 
</ul>
Line 168: Line 166:
 
<ul>
 
<ul>
 
<li><b>Philosophy</b> – Throughout his commentary Ibn Ezra touches on philosophial issues.</li>
 
<li><b>Philosophy</b> – Throughout his commentary Ibn Ezra touches on philosophial issues.</li>
</ul>
+
</ul><ul>
<ul>
 
 
<ul>
 
<ul>
 
<li><b>Incorporeality and anthropomorphism</b> – In several places Ibn Ezra emphasizes that the Torah's anthropomorphic language is simply a figure of speech, a "משל" or "לשון בני אדם,"&#8206;<fn>See his lengthy explanation of the issue in Second Commentary Shemot 19:20.</fn> and does not mean that Hashem is corporeal or that he has such human traits as forgetting,<fn>See Hoshea 4:6.</fn> changing His mind,<fn>See First Commentary Bereshit 6:6 and Second Commentary Shemot 13:17,&#160; Shemot 32:14 (here, he brings several other examples of anthropomorphic language as well) and First Commentary Yonah 3:10,</fn> or the like.<fn>For several of many examples where Ibn Ezra addresss anthropomorphic language, see: First Commentary Bereshit 8:21,11:5, Second Commentary Shemot 13:21, Devarim 32:20, Yeshayahu 43:24, Yonah 4:19, Second Commentary Tehillim 2:4.</fn></li>
 
<li><b>Incorporeality and anthropomorphism</b> – In several places Ibn Ezra emphasizes that the Torah's anthropomorphic language is simply a figure of speech, a "משל" or "לשון בני אדם,"&#8206;<fn>See his lengthy explanation of the issue in Second Commentary Shemot 19:20.</fn> and does not mean that Hashem is corporeal or that he has such human traits as forgetting,<fn>See Hoshea 4:6.</fn> changing His mind,<fn>See First Commentary Bereshit 6:6 and Second Commentary Shemot 13:17,&#160; Shemot 32:14 (here, he brings several other examples of anthropomorphic language as well) and First Commentary Yonah 3:10,</fn> or the like.<fn>For several of many examples where Ibn Ezra addresss anthropomorphic language, see: First Commentary Bereshit 8:21,11:5, Second Commentary Shemot 13:21, Devarim 32:20, Yeshayahu 43:24, Yonah 4:19, Second Commentary Tehillim 2:4.</fn></li>
Line 178: Line 175:
 
<li><b>Polemics against the Karaites </b>–&#160; Throughout his commentary, Ibn Ezra explicitly debates the Karaites, rejecting their interpretations which do not abide by the Oral Law.<fn>Already in his introductions he brings the Karaites as one of four approaches which he rejects.&#160; For some of many examples where he refutes Karaitic positions, seeFirst Commentary Shemot 21:25,26, 32, 22:28, 23:19, 35:3ת Vayikra 11:19, 26, 19:20, 23:11, 40, 25:9, Devarim 12:17, 16:7 22:12, 24:6</fn></li>
 
<li><b>Polemics against the Karaites </b>–&#160; Throughout his commentary, Ibn Ezra explicitly debates the Karaites, rejecting their interpretations which do not abide by the Oral Law.<fn>Already in his introductions he brings the Karaites as one of four approaches which he rejects.&#160; For some of many examples where he refutes Karaitic positions, seeFirst Commentary Shemot 21:25,26, 32, 22:28, 23:19, 35:3ת Vayikra 11:19, 26, 19:20, 23:11, 40, 25:9, Devarim 12:17, 16:7 22:12, 24:6</fn></li>
 
<li><b>Defense of Avot </b>– Ibn Ezra will often defend seemingly problematic actions of our forefathers.<fn>See First Commentary Bereshit 21:14 (regarding the banishment of Hagar and Yoshmael), Bereshit 25:34 (regarding the sale of the birthright).</fn>&#160;</li>
 
<li><b>Defense of Avot </b>– Ibn Ezra will often defend seemingly problematic actions of our forefathers.<fn>See First Commentary Bereshit 21:14 (regarding the banishment of Hagar and Yoshmael), Bereshit 25:34 (regarding the sale of the birthright).</fn>&#160;</li>
</ul>
+
</ul><ul>
<ul>
 
 
<li><b>Attitude towards the Masoretic text</b> –Ibn Ezra's attitude towards the Masoretic text is somewhat complicated:</li>
 
<li><b>Attitude towards the Masoretic text</b> –Ibn Ezra's attitude towards the Masoretic text is somewhat complicated:</li>
</ul>
+
</ul><ul>
<ul>
 
 
<ul>
 
<ul>
 
<li><b>Accuracy of text</b> – Ibn Ezra believed in the accuracy of the Masoretic text, lauding the work of the Masoretes, "שומרי החומות", who guarded the text from mistakes and corruption.<fn>For a more comprehensive discussion of Ibn Ezra's views and how they compare to those of Radak, see: א. סימון, "ראב"ע ורד"ק – שתי גישות לשאלת מהימנות נוסח המקרא", בר-אילן, ו' (תשכ"ח / 1968): 237-191.</fn> Viewing their work as complete, he did not think it necessary for one to become an expert in the discipline, or to delve into the issue of textual variants.<fn>Since he viewed the text as fixed he believed that it was more impornat to spend time delve into its content rather than its form. This attitude is seen in the fact that he does not turn to Aramaic translations, variant citations in Rabbinic literature or other manuscripts to compare versions of the text.</fn> This attitude affects his stance on several issues:</li>
 
<li><b>Accuracy of text</b> – Ibn Ezra believed in the accuracy of the Masoretic text, lauding the work of the Masoretes, "שומרי החומות", who guarded the text from mistakes and corruption.<fn>For a more comprehensive discussion of Ibn Ezra's views and how they compare to those of Radak, see: א. סימון, "ראב"ע ורד"ק – שתי גישות לשאלת מהימנות נוסח המקרא", בר-אילן, ו' (תשכ"ח / 1968): 237-191.</fn> Viewing their work as complete, he did not think it necessary for one to become an expert in the discipline, or to delve into the issue of textual variants.<fn>Since he viewed the text as fixed he believed that it was more impornat to spend time delve into its content rather than its form. This attitude is seen in the fact that he does not turn to Aramaic translations, variant citations in Rabbinic literature or other manuscripts to compare versions of the text.</fn> This attitude affects his stance on several issues:</li>

Version as of 23:02, 6 June 2021

Ibn Ezra – Intellectual Profile

This page is a stub.
Please contact us if you would like to assist in its development.
Ibn Ezra
Name
R. Avraham ben Meir Ibn Ezra
ר' אברהם בן מאיר אבן עזרא, ראב"ע
Dates1092 – 1167
LocationAndalusia / Italy / Provence / France / England
WorksCommentaries on Torah and part of Nakh, math, science, and grammar works.
Exegetical Characteristics
Influenced byR. Saadia Gaon, R. Yonah ibn Janach, R. Yehudah Hayuj
Impacted onMost Jewish Bible commentators. His though great impact on Chasidei Ashkenzaz

Background

Life

  • Name – Avraham ben Meir ibn Ezra1
  • Dates – 1088/89-1164 or 1092-11672
  • Location –  Andalusia, Italy, France, Provence, England. Ibn Ezra's life can be divided into two main periods, until about 1140 in which he was centered in Andalusia,3 and from then until his death which he spent wandering through Christian lands.4 In the first period his primary literary output was in the field of poetry. His Tanakh commentaries, grammatical and other works were written in the later period.5 As such, it was first at about the age of fifty that Ibn Ezra began to write the scholarly works for which he is so well known.
  • Education – Ibn Ezra was a polymath, engaging in many disciplines including Bible, Talmud,6 Midrash, grammar and philology, philosophy, mathematics, astronomy, astrology,7 and poetry,8
  • Occupation – Poet, teacher,9 and Bible commentator.  From several of his poems,10 it is evident that Ibn Ezra struggled to make a living.11
  • Family – Not much is known of Ibn Ezra's family. It is possible that he sired five children,12 but only one is known by name, Yitzchak, who was a poet of note.13 It is possible that he predeceased his father.14 
  • Teachers – 
  • Contemporaries – R. Yehuda HaLevi,15 Rabbi Moshe ibn Ezra,16 Rabbi Joseph ibn Tzadik,17 Rashbam, R. Tam.18
  • Students – 
  • Time period – Ibn Ezra lived during the Almohad's invasion of Moslem Spain and their forced conversions of Jews to Islam on pain of death. This likely contributed to Ibn Ezra's leaving of Spain and his subsequent wanderings.19 He wrote an elegy, "אֲהָהּ יָרַד עֲלֵי סְפָרַד", lamenting the destruction of the Jewish communities in Spain in the aftermath of the invasion.20  In addition, the first (1095) and second crusades.(1150) took place during his lifetime.

Works

Ibn Ezra was a prolific writer, leaving behind many works in a variety of fields from poetry to astronomy:21

  • Biblical commentaries
    • Ibn Ezra wrote a commentary on all five books of the Torah, Yeshayahu, Trei Asar, Tehillim, Iyyov, the five Megillot, and Daniel.22 He is somewhat unique among commentators in having written two distinct commentaries for each of several books,23 including Bereshit,24 Shemot,25 Trei Asar, Tehillim, Esther, Shir HaShirim and Daniel.26  Two fragments of a third commentary to Bereshit, recorded by a patron and disciple, have also survived.27
    • It is likely that Ibn Ezra wrote on the other books as well, as he himself periodically refers his reader to such explanations,28 but these works have not survived.29  The commentaries on Mishlei and Ezra-Nechemyah attributed to him were likely authored by Moshe Kimchi.30 
  • Grammar – Ibn Ezra wrote several grammatical works including: 31ספר מאזנים, ספר צחות32, שפת יתר,33 שפה ברורה34, and יסוד דקדוק35.  He also translated several works of R. Yehuda ibn Hayyuj into Hebrew.
  • Astronomy, mathematics and more   Ibn Ezra wrote many scientific works including (but not limited to): ספר המספר, טעמי הלוחות, כלי נחושת, ספר האחד, ראשית חכמה, ספר הטעמים, ספר המולדות,ספר המאורות, ספר העיבור and אגדת השבת.
  • Rabbinics – No Talmudic novellae or Halakhic codes of Ibn Ezra are extant.  There is, though, one citation that might testify to his having written on the Talmud.  In his introduction to his commentary on Megillat Esther, R. Zecharyah b. Saruq writes, "ואנכי ראיתי חדושי הראב"ע מסכת קידושין והם בתכלית הדקות והאימות".
  • Philosophy / Jewish thought – Ibn Ezra's philosophical views can be found scattered throughout his Torah commentaries, but he also wrote several works which heavily focused on such issues. His work, יסוד מורא וסוד התורה, discusses the rationale behind Biblical commandments.36  His ערוגת המזימה פרדס החכמה deals with the existence of God, while ספר השם discusses the names of God. 

Torah Commentary

Characteristics

  • Verse by verse / Topical – Ibn Ezra's commentary is generally a local, verse by verse commentary, marked by brevity and an emphasis on grammar and linguistics. However, there are many exceptions where Ibn Ezra includes lengthy discussions of philosophical and other issues37 including long excurses on God's name,38 the Priestly Garments, Ten Commandments,39 Aharon's role in the Sin of the Golden Calf,40 and Moses' request to see the face of God.41
  • Language of the commentary – Ibn Ezra, somewhat unique among commentators of his era who came from Islamic lands, wrote his commentary in Hebrew rather than Arabic.42  Ibn Ezra's language is often cryptic and obscure,43 making it difficult to understand.44
  • Peshat and Derash – Ibn Ezra distinguishes between the authority he grants the interpretations of the Sages in legal and narrative material, finding their words binding with regards to the former but not the latter.45 In his introduction to his second commentary, he provides three criteria for determining when one may reject or reinterpret the simple sense of a text: if the explanation goes against reason, contradicts another verse, or disputes tradition ("קבלה" / Oral Law).46  It is these criteria which inform Ibn Ezra's distinct attitude towards aggadic and halakhic Midrashim:
    • Narrative material – According to Ibn Ezra, since aggadic interpretations are not binding (i.e. they don't fall under the realm of "קבלה"), if these do not accord with another verse47 or contradict logic,48 they might be rejected.  Nonetheless, sometimes Ibn Ezra will cautiously add "but if it is a tradition, we will accept it".49  Elsewhere, he might maintain that the Midrash is correct in essence, but not meant to be taken at face value.50  There are also instances, though, where Ibn Ezra will not only reject a Midrashic interpretation but even belittle the very question it is asking, dismissing it as unnecessary.51
    • Legal material – With regards to legal material, in contrast, Ibn Ezra will  accept the opinion of the Sages, even if it appears to contradict the simple sense of the verse.52  In such cases, he often suggests that the verse is being used simply as an "אסמכתא", a hook to remind one of the law.53 In other cases he will attempt to show how the understanding of Chazal is really the simple sense of the verses.54 He notes, too, that if a verse can sustain two different logical interpretations, only one of which accords with that of the Sages,55 the Sages' explanation should be preferred.56  He often speaks of the need to rely on the Sages, noting that otherwise the law cannot be properly determined.57  There are, however, also cases where Ibn Ezra's explanations go against halakhah.58
  • Grammar – Ibn Ezra's commentary is characterized by a heavy emphasis on grammar. He believed that knowledge of grammar is crucial to understanding the Biblical text, writing in the introduction to his Torah commentary: "ובעבותות הדקדוק נקשר".  See below ("methods") for discussion and examples of his grammatical insights.

Methods


  • Programmatic statements / introductions – In his introduction to his Torah commentary, Ibn Ezra lays out his methodology in interpreting the Biblical text. He first discusses and rejects four distinct approaches to Biblical exegesis, and then presents his own.59 He dismisses:
    • Christian allegorical and typological interpretations as these do not match the simple, literal sense of the text60
    • Karaite explanations61 since they do not accept the Oral law
    • The extensive philosophical treatises of the Geonim as they have no place in a peshat Torah commentary whose goal is to interpret the verses62 
    • Homiletical exegesis which draws heavily on Midrash, seeing these as superfluous, having already been expressed by the Sages.63
    • Regarding his own methodology he writes that his goal is, "לבאר כל כתוב כמשפטו, ודקדוקו ופשוטו". Elsewhere in the introduction, he similarly notes: "ובעבותות הדקדוק נקשר / ובעיני הדעת יכשר", pointing to two hallmarks of Spanish exegesis: grammar and logic. Each of these will be discussed below.
  • Grammar – Listed below are a few examples of some of the grammatical issues discussed by Ibn Ezra:64
    • דרך קצרה – Ibn Ezra often uses this language to mark varied examples where Tanakh uses abridged phrases or sentences. Tanakh might omit a subject,65 object,66 or prepositions.67 It might employ an adjective or other descriptor but leave out the noun which it qualifies.68 At times, too, Tanakh will refrain from doubling a word, though this might have been necessary grammatically.69 In many cases, Ibn Ezra uses the language of "מושך עצמו ואחר עמו"‎70 to express that a letter/word/phrase which appears in one part of the verse applies to another part of the verse as well.71
    • Missing / superfluous / interchangeable  letters – Ibn Ezra points to many examples of such grammatical phenomena, noting that sometimes the vav conjunctive might be lacking,72 the letters בכל""ם are simply assumed,73 or the אהו"י letters might not appear in a word.74  He lays out rules for which letters might be substituted one for another (ש/ס or א/ה/ו/י)  and which may not.75 He also notes letters which are extraneous, thereby clarifying otherwise difficult words.76
    • Androgynous nouns / verbs – Ibn Ezra notes that several nouns might be treated as either masculine or feminine.77 He also notes verbs which combine the masculine and feminine forms, as in the word "וַיֵּחַמְנָה"‎.78
    • Tense –  Ibn Ezra notes that Scripture at times employs the imperfect with the meaning of a perfect,79 the perfect with the meaning of an imperfect,80 or the perfect as a pluperfect.81
    • Unique forms – Ibn Ezra will often note unique or strange grammatical forms, referring to these as "מלים זרות".‎82
  • Reason  – Ibn Ezra holds human reason as integral to proper interpretation and will reject explanations of verses which do not stand up to it.83 
    • Homiletical expositions of the Sages – See the discussion and examples above regarding his rejection of aggadic explanations which he finds illogical.84
    • Mitzvot – Ibn Ezra notes that though we might not know the reason for all laws, it is impossible that any should refute logic.85  Thus, if the simple, literal meaning of a law appears irrational, it may be reinterpreted metaphorically.86 For instance, as Hashem obviously does not want man to kill himself, one must understand the statement "וּמַלְתֶּם אֵת עׇרְלַת לְבַבְכֶם" (Devarim 10:16) to mean that man must purify his heart or remove temptations, not to literally circumcise it.87
    • Prophetic statements – In prophecy too, it is possible that not all statements are meant to be taken literally. As Hashem would never command a prophet to act in a foolish way, Ibn Ezra suggests that certain commands which appear to have been fulfilled in actuality, were in fact simply prophetic visions.88  Other statements are taken allegorically to minimize the miraculous.89
    • טעמי המצוות – Ibn Ezra provides rationalist explanations for several mitzvot, suggesting, for example, that laws of forbidden foods might be health-related.90
  • Lexical Issues 
    • Defining Words –When attempting to define a difficult word, Ibn Ezra will look both within the text to find Biblical parallels and without, to other related languages.91
      • Use of Biblical parallels – Ibn Ezra will often explain difficult words by looking at Biblical parallels92and/or laws of grammar.93
      • Use of cognate languages – Often, too, Ibn Ezra will turn to cognate languages such as Arabic94 or Aramaic95 and will even note linguistic patterns96 or grammatical forms97 that are similar in the two languages.
      • Loanwords – At times, Ibn Ezra posits that a Biblical word is actually a loanword from a different language.98  
    • Secondary Meanings – Ibn Ezra recognizes that many words have both a primary and secondary meaning.99 When such a word is being used according to its primary meaning he will often write, "פירושו כמשמעו".
  • Literary sensitivity
    • "צחות הלשון" – Ibn Ezra is attuned to the literary beauty of Tanakh, sometimes remarking on "צחות הלשון," noting when Tanakh employs plays on words100 or repeats a word for literary effect101
    • דרכי המקראות (Literary Devices) – Ibn Ezra displays an awareness of Tanakh's literary devices, explaining that seemingly anomalous phenomena are simply "the way of the text":
      • הכתוב שומר הטעמים ולא המלות – When analyzing parallel passages, Ibn Ezra belittles the significance of changes in language, explaining that as long as the meaning is maintained, the choice of word is not important. Thus, for instance, one should not be troubled by the fact that the two versions of the Decalogue are not identical.102 Similarly, one need not be bothered by the fact that a word might be written "מלא" in one place and "חסר" in another.103
      • Resumptive repetition – Ibn Ezra notes that certain repetitions in the text are a literary device, and serve to indicate the resumption of a narrative that had been cut off by some digression (מפני שארכו הדברים).104
      • Synonymous parallels (כפל הענין) – When a verse contains parallel phrases or words, Ibn Ezra will generally not attempt to distinguish between the two, but rather simply explain that the two phrases mean the same thing,105 writing " הטעם כפול" or the like.‎106  In his second commentary to Shemot 14:19 he notes that such poetic doubling is very common in the prophetic sections of Tanakh, but not so in regular narrative.107 
      • Chiasmus – Ibn Ezra notes that a common Biblical literary structure of chiasmus. When Tanakh lists two things, and the next clause or statement refers back to them, it will often begin with the second item and only afterwards return to the first, in the form a-b-b-a.108
      • מקרא מסורס
  • Realia – Ibn Ezra will often explain the text in terms of the realia of either his own day or Biblical times:
    • Customs, science, and human behavior of his day – Ibn Ezra often explains verses in light of the customs of his own day, assuming, "כי מנהג ישראל היה כמנהג ישמעאל עד היום" (Second Commentary Shemot 38:8).109 
    • General human behavior, speech and customs – Ibn Ezra also explicates the text in light of more general human behavior.110
    • Identification of unknown places, plants, animals – Ibn Ezra is hesitant to identify such objects111 unless there is a tradition regarding them112 or there is enough evidence in the verses to provide an identification.
    • Realia of the Biblical period – At times, Ibn Ezra will point to the customs of Biblical times to explicate a verse.113
  • Issues of Ordering – Ibn Ezra's local, atomistic view of Torah likely impacted his approach to ordering:
    • אין מוקדם ומאוחר – Ibn Ezra often posits achronology in Torah.114  More often than not, he will not explain why the text chose to tell the story out of chronological order, though sometimes he will provide a literary115 or pedagogic reason.116  Often, too, he will simply explain that the perfect form of the verb actually implies a past perfect.117
    • סמיכותת פרשיות – In legal sections of Torah, Ibn Ezra will often attempt to explain why one law is juxtaposed to the next,118 but he argues against the Karaites who learn out the nature of the law itself from the context.119  In other words, though the context might explain why certain laws are grouped together, it cannot be used to determine the specific nature and definition of any given law.120

Themes

  • Philosophy – Throughout his commentary Ibn Ezra touches on philosophial issues.
    • Incorporeality and anthropomorphism – In several places Ibn Ezra emphasizes that the Torah's anthropomorphic language is simply a figure of speech, a "משל" or "לשון בני אדם,"‎121 and does not mean that Hashem is corporeal or that he has such human traits as forgetting,122 changing His mind,123 or the like.124
    • God's names – See Shemot Second Commentary 3:15 and 33:21.
    • Prophecy –  Ibn Ezra allows for the possibility that a prophet can lie if the circumstances call for it (such as in cases of danger to life).125 He also states that a prophet can err in worldly matters, pointing to Natan as an example.126 This relates to the fact that a prophet's knowledge of the future is limited to that which Hashem reveals to him.
    • Miracles – Though Ibn Ezra will at times minimize the miraculous,127 quite often he cautions against those who over-rationalize and dismiss the possibility of the supernatural.128 
  • Polemics against the Karaites –  Throughout his commentary, Ibn Ezra explicitly debates the Karaites, rejecting their interpretations which do not abide by the Oral Law.129
  • Defense of Avot – Ibn Ezra will often defend seemingly problematic actions of our forefathers.130 
  • Attitude towards the Masoretic text –Ibn Ezra's attitude towards the Masoretic text is somewhat complicated:
    • Accuracy of text – Ibn Ezra believed in the accuracy of the Masoretic text, lauding the work of the Masoretes, "שומרי החומות", who guarded the text from mistakes and corruption.131 Viewing their work as complete, he did not think it necessary for one to become an expert in the discipline, or to delve into the issue of textual variants.132 This attitude affects his stance on several issues:
      • קרי וכתיב – Ibn Ezra does not offer a full explanation of the phenomenon,133 simply asserting that the two variant readings have the same meaning and, thus, that the difference is insignificant.134
      • Variations between parallel texts – When there are orthographic and other minor differences between parallel texts, Ibn Ezra is not troubled135 stating that as long as the meaning is maintained the fact that there is a slight difference in language is inconsequential.136
      • Tikkun Soferim – Ibn Ezra prefers not to apply this concept with its assumption that the Sages might have altered the text.137
      • Interpreting in accordance with masoretic markers – Ibn Ezra argues against interpretations which ignore verse markers138 or negate cantillation marks.139  
    • Authorship – In contrast to his conservatism regarding the accuracy of the text, Ibn Ezra is somewhat more radical with regards to issues of authorship. In several places Ibn Ezra hints to a "secret" regarding the authorship of individual verses which appear to have been recorded in a later era than the rest of the book, appearing to imply that these specific verses might be of non Mosaic authorship.140
  • Astrology – Ibn Ezra often speaks of astrological phenomenon and the role of the stars in determining what will take place on earth.141 

Textual Issues

  • Manuscripts – 
  • Printings – 
  • Textual layers – See Ibn Ezra's Torah Commentary for discussion of Ibn Ezra's own additions to his First Commentary.

Sources

Significant Influences

  • Earlier Sources
    • R. Saadiah Gaon (892-942 C.E.) – Ibn Ezra was heavily influenced by R. Saadia Gaon. He cites him close to 300 times in his commentary, sometimes agreeing, sometimes disagreeing.142
    • R. Moshe ibn Chiquitillah(11th century) – Ibn Chiquitillah was another major influence on Ibn Ezra and is also cited more than 250 times in Ibn Ezra's various commentaries, most often in Tehillim.143
    • Grammarians - R. Judah ibn Hayyuj ( c. 950-1000), R. Yonah ibn Janach (c. 920-c 970); R Menachem ben Saruk (c. 910- c. 970 C.E.); Dunash ben Labrat (920-990 C.E.)
  • Teachers – 
  • Foils – As mentioned above, Ibn Ezra contrast his own approach to Torah with the Midrashic approach of Chazal, the philosophic approach of the Geonim, the allegorical / typlogical approach of Christians, and the readings of Karaites who dismiss the Oral Law.

Occasional Usage

Possible Relationship


  • Rashbam – Ibn Ezra and Rashbam lived at the same time, were both pioneers of "peshat" analysis, and some of their interpretations resemble one another, yet neither ever cites the other by name, leading scholars to debate the degree of influence they had upon one another.
    • Was Ibn Ezra aware of Rashbam's commentary? Several scholars assume that Ibn Ezra did not have access to Rashbam's commentary when he wrote his First Commentary to Torah in Italy,144 but that by the time he wrote his Second Commentary in Rouen, he either had it in its entirety or was at least aware of individual comments.145 Similarly, it has been suggested that Ibn Ezra's Iggeret HaShabbat was written to combat Rashbam's explanation of Bereshit 1:4-8 where he implies that the day precedes the night. In addition, R. Merdler146 has demonstrated that Ibn Ezra in his Second Commentary on Bereshit is responding to Rashbam's Sefer HaDayyakot.  See a comparison table here.
    • Was Rashbam aware of Ibn Ezra's commentary? Noting the similarity between many of the exegetes' interpretations, some have suggested that Rashbam might have had access to individual interpretations of Ibn Ezra, or even to the entire First Commentary while writing his own work.147 Alternatively, though, it is possible that some of the overlap might simply be due to the similar style of exegesis or to shared sources.

Impact

Later exegetes 


  • Rabbi Yehudah He-Chasid148
  • Rabbi David Kimchi (1160-1235)
  • Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman (1195-1270)
  • Rabbi Levi ben Gershon (1288-1344).
  • Rabbi Don Yitzchak Abravanel (1437-1508).
  • Maimonides - The many parallels between the teachings of Ibn Ezra and those of Maimonides (1138–1204) have led some to suggest that the works of Ibn Ezra influenced Maimonides.149

Supercommentaries