Difference between revisions of "Commentators:R. Avraham ibn Ezra/0"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m |
m |
||
| Line 81: | Line 81: | ||
<li><b>Verse by verse / Topical</b> – 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 issues<fn>The essays are occasionally introduced with the words "Avraham the Author says", or "the Words of Avraham".</fn> including long excurses on God's name,<fn>See Ibn Ezra on Ex. 3:15 and 33:21.</fn> the Priestly Garments, Ten Commandments,<fn>See the second Commentary to Shemot 20:1.</fn> Aharon's role in the Sin of the Golden Calf,<fn>See his commentaries to Shemot 32:1.</fn> and Moses' request to see the face of God.<fn>See his First Commentary on Shemot 33:18 and his Second Commentary to Shemot 33:21.</fn></li> | <li><b>Verse by verse / Topical</b> – 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 issues<fn>The essays are occasionally introduced with the words "Avraham the Author says", or "the Words of Avraham".</fn> including long excurses on God's name,<fn>See Ibn Ezra on Ex. 3:15 and 33:21.</fn> the Priestly Garments, Ten Commandments,<fn>See the second Commentary to Shemot 20:1.</fn> Aharon's role in the Sin of the Golden Calf,<fn>See his commentaries to Shemot 32:1.</fn> and Moses' request to see the face of God.<fn>See his First Commentary on Shemot 33:18 and his Second Commentary to Shemot 33:21.</fn></li> | ||
<li><b>Language </b>– Ibn Ezra, somewhat unique among commentators of his era who came from Islamic lands, wrote his commentary in Hebrew rather than Arabic.<fn>As discussed above, this was likely a result of his wanderings.  In the Christian lands in which he traveled, people did not understand Arabic. The choice of language is also likely the reason that the commentary survived.</fn>  Ibn Ezra's language is often cryptic and obscure,<fn>This might, at times, have been intentional, as when his content was controversial. It is also possible that in certain places in his commentary, Ibn Ezra was targeting the educated elite rather than the masses and / or writing for students or patrons with whom he learned personally and would therefore comprehend his truncated style.  A third factor which might contribute to the difficulty is that Ibn Ezra was often forced to coin Hebrew terms for mathematical or astronomical concepts which were not in use at the time, and might not have been accepted by future generations..</fn> making it difficult to understand.<fn>This is likely what sparked so many supercommentaries.</fn></li> | <li><b>Language </b>– Ibn Ezra, somewhat unique among commentators of his era who came from Islamic lands, wrote his commentary in Hebrew rather than Arabic.<fn>As discussed above, this was likely a result of his wanderings.  In the Christian lands in which he traveled, people did not understand Arabic. The choice of language is also likely the reason that the commentary survived.</fn>  Ibn Ezra's language is often cryptic and obscure,<fn>This might, at times, have been intentional, as when his content was controversial. It is also possible that in certain places in his commentary, Ibn Ezra was targeting the educated elite rather than the masses and / or writing for students or patrons with whom he learned personally and would therefore comprehend his truncated style.  A third factor which might contribute to the difficulty is that Ibn Ezra was often forced to coin Hebrew terms for mathematical or astronomical concepts which were not in use at the time, and might not have been accepted by future generations..</fn> making it difficult to understand.<fn>This is likely what sparked so many supercommentaries.</fn></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 introductory remarks to Torah, where he writes that he plans  "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".<br/>See, similarly, his introduction to the First Cםmmentary: "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 introduction to his second commentary, Ibn Ezra provides three criteria for determining when one may | + | <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 introductory remarks to Torah, where he writes that he plans  "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".<br/>See, similarly, his introduction to the First Cםmmentary: "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 introduction to his second commentary, Ibn Ezra provides three criteria for determining when one may reject or reinterpret the simple sense of a text:<fn>These criteria apply also to any predecessor's explanations or the text itself.</fn> if the explanation goes against reason, contradicts another verse, or disputes tradition.<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.  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>  It is these criteria which inform Ibn Ezra's distinct attitude towards aggadic and halakhic Midrashim:</li> |
<ul> | <ul> | ||
| − | <li><b>Narrative material</b> – | + | <li><b>Narrative material</b> – According to Ibn Ezra, aggadic interpretations which do not accord with another verse<fn>For examples see Ibn Ezra First Commentary Bereshit 11:29 where he dismisses the aggadic position that Avraham rather than Sarah was barren, pointing out that is "היפך הכתוב", contradicting verses which present Avraham as bearing Yishmael or the sons of Keturah.  For other examples, see First Commentary Bereshit 19:12, 22:19, 24:2, 25:1, 28:11, 39:6, and Shemot 24:14.  See also Ibn Ezra's introduction to Eikhah.</fn> and those which 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.  He similarly dismisses opinions that he was a young child, noting that if so he would  not have been able to carry the wood.   For other examples, see First Commentary Bereshit 31:19, 38:1 (and Shemot 24:14), 46:27, Second Commentary Shemot 7:24, 18:21, 20:1, 25:5, 31:1.</fn> might be rejected.  Nonetheless, recognizing the value of "tradition," after dismissing a Midrash, Ibn Ezra will periodically add "but if it is a tradition, we will accept it".<fn>See, for insatnce, his First Commentary Bereshit 11:29, 22:6-8, Second Commentary Bereshit 11:28, Second Commentray Shemot 1:15,15:22, 25:5, 25:18, 26:18-28, 40:2, Yeshayahu 1:1 and First Commentary to Amos 5:25.  In many of these cases Ibn Ezra states something to the effect of: "ואם קבלה היא... נסמוך על הקבלה." </fn>  Elsewhere, he might maintain that the Midrash is correct in essence, but not meant to be taken at face value.<fn>Thus, Ibn Ezra notes that the Rabbinic statement that “Noah drank from his vineyard on the day he planted it” is not to be taken literally. Neither is the Rabbinic statement that that God showed Moses the knot of the tefillin 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>  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>Legal material</b> – 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.  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."  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."  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,  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 | + | <li><b>Legal material</b> – 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.  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."  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."  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,  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> He notes, too, that if a verse can sustain two different 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.</fn> the second interpretation should be nullified in light of the Sages' explanation.<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 should apply to all future generations.  However, 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>  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 to Shemot 35:3 (על כן אנחנו צריכים בדברי כל המצות לקבלה ומסורת ותורה שבעל פה), Shemot 21:24, second commentary Shemot 30:33, Vayikra 11:8, 12:6, 20:9, and 25:30.</fn></li> |
</ul> | </ul> | ||
</ul> | </ul> | ||
| Line 113: | Line 113: | ||
<li>Scripture at times employs the imperfect with the meaning of a perfect,<fn>See I.E. on Ex. 15:1.</fn> the perfect with the meaning of an imperfect,<fn>See I.E. on Gen. 23::13.</fn>or the perfect as a pluperfect.<fn>See I.E. on Gen. 2:8</fn></li> | <li>Scripture at times employs the imperfect with the meaning of a perfect,<fn>See I.E. on Ex. 15:1.</fn> the perfect with the meaning of an imperfect,<fn>See I.E. on Gen. 23::13.</fn>or the perfect as a pluperfect.<fn>See I.E. on Gen. 2:8</fn></li> | ||
</ul> | </ul> | ||
| − | <li><b>Reason</b>  –</li> | + | <li><b>Reason</b>  – Ibn Ezra will reject explanations of verses which do not stand up to reason. </li> |
<ul> | <ul> | ||
| − | <li> | + | <li>Homiletical expositions of the Sages – See the discussion and examples above regarding his rejection of aggadic explanations which he finds illogical.<fn>For one example, see Shemot 25:3-5 where he discusses the question of where the nation as Accacia trees with which to build the Mishkan, dismissing those who suggest that they took these out of Egypt. He notes that the nation would have had no reason to think to carry heavy planks of wood while fleeing Egypt, making the explanation illogical.</fn></li> |
| + | <li>Mitzvot – Ibn Ezra notes that though we might not know the reason for all laws, it is impossible that any should refute logic.<fn>See his second Commentray shemot 20:2, "וחלילה חלילה, שתהיה מצוה אחת מהן מכחשת הדעת".</fn>  Thus, if the simple, literal meaning of a law appears irrational, it may be reinterpreted metaphorically.<fn>See his second Commentary to shemot 20:2, " ואם מצאנו אחת מהן שהיא מכחשת שקול הדעת, אינו נכון שנאמין כי הוא כמשמעה, רק נבקש דברי קדמונינו מה טעמה, אם היא על דרך משל. ואם לא מצאנו אחת מהן, נבקש אנחנו ונחפש בכל יכלתינו, אולי נוכל לתקן אותה".</fn> 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.<fn>As another example, See Ibn Ezra's defense of the Sages' non literal understanding of "an eye for an eye" in Second Commentary Shemot 21:24. [See also Ibn Ezra's Second Commentary Shemot 13:9 where he notes that one need NOT read the verse allegorically since it does not refute logic if read literally.]</fn></li> | ||
| + | <li>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.<fn>See, for example his comments to Hoshea 1:1 where he dismisses the possibility that Hoshe actually married a prostitute, noting that it would not make sense for Hashem to command such a thing. There he also points to Yeshayahu's walking barefoot, Yechezkel's lying on hi side and other seemingly bizarre actions.</fn>  Other statements are taken allegorically to minimize the miraculous.<fn>See, for example, Ibn Ezra's allegorical reading of Yeshayahu 11:6, where he asserts that the prophecy that "the wolf will dwell with the lamb" is a metaphor for world peace and harmony. See discussion below for more on Ibn Ezra's attitude towards the miraculous.</fn></li> | ||
</ul> | </ul> | ||
</ul> | </ul> | ||
| Line 143: | Line 145: | ||
<li><b>Polemics against the Karaites</b></li> | <li><b>Polemics against the Karaites</b></li> | ||
<li><b>Astrology</b> – Ibn Ezra often speaks of astrological phenomenon and the role of the stars in determining what will take place on earth.  For example, he notes that each nation has its own unique constellation that guides it, while Hashem alone guides Israel.<fn>See his comments to Devarim 4:19-20.</fn> He states that the arrangement of the stars reveals what is new and destined for each day, reflecting the mind of Hashem.<fn>See Ibn Ezra Tehillim 19:2-5 and Tehillim 69:29, "All the decrees that are destined to come are there [in the heavens] written."</fn></li> | <li><b>Astrology</b> – Ibn Ezra often speaks of astrological phenomenon and the role of the stars in determining what will take place on earth.  For example, he notes that each nation has its own unique constellation that guides it, while Hashem alone guides Israel.<fn>See his comments to Devarim 4:19-20.</fn> He states that the arrangement of the stars reveals what is new and destined for each day, reflecting the mind of Hashem.<fn>See Ibn Ezra Tehillim 19:2-5 and Tehillim 69:29, "All the decrees that are destined to come are there [in the heavens] written."</fn></li> | ||
| + | <li>Miracles</li> | ||
</ul> | </ul> | ||
</subcategory> | </subcategory> | ||
Version as of 06:14, 20 May 2021
Ibn Ezra – Intellectual Profile
This page is a stub.
Please contact us if you would like to assist in its development.
Please contact us if you would like to assist in its development.
| Name | R. Avraham ben Meir Ibn Ezra ר' אברהם בן מאיר אבן עזרא, ראב"ע |
|---|---|
| Dates | 1092 – 1167 |
| Location | Andalusia / Italy / Provence / France / England |
| Works | Commentaries on Torah and part of Nakh, math, science, and grammar works. |
| Exegetical Characteristics | |
| Influenced by | R. Saadia Gaon, R. Yonah ibn Janach, R. Yehudah Hayuj |
| Impacted on | Most 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, and from then until his death which he spent wandering through Christian lands.3 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.4 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,5 Midrash, grammar and philology, philosophy, mathematics, astronomy, astrology,6 and poetry.
- Occupation – Poet,7 teacher,8 and Bible commentator
- Family – Not much is known of Ibn Ezra's family. It is possible that he sired five children,9 but only one is known by name, Yitzchak, who was a poet of note.10 It is possible that he predeceased his father.11
- Teachers –
- Contemporaries – R. Yehuda HaLevi,12 Rabbi Moshe ibn Ezra,13 Rabbi Joseph ibn Tzadik,14 Rashbam, R. Tam.15
- 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.16 He wrote an elegy, "אֲהָהּ יָרַד עֲלֵי סְפָרַד", lamenting the destruction of the Jewish communities in Spain in the aftermath of the invasion.17 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:18
- Biblical commentaries –
- Ibn Ezra wrote a commentary on all five books of the Torah,19 Yeshayahu,20 Trei Asar, Tehillim,21 Iyyov, the five Megillot,22 and Daniel. 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 and mathematics – Ibn Ezra wrote many astrological works including: Reshit Hokhmah,36 Safer Ha-Te’ammim,37 Keli Nechoshet,38 Ta’ame Luhot Al-Ku’arizmi, 39 Sefer Ha-Ibbur, Response to Three Questions of Rabbi David Narboni, and Sefer Ha-Me’orot40
- 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.41 His ערוגת המזימה פרדס החכמה deals with the existence of God, while ספר השם, as its name suggests, 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 issues42 including long excurses on God's name,43 the Priestly Garments, Ten Commandments,44 Aharon's role in the Sin of the Golden Calf,45 and Moses' request to see the face of God.46
- Language – Ibn Ezra, somewhat unique among commentators of his era who came from Islamic lands, wrote his commentary in Hebrew rather than Arabic.47 Ibn Ezra's language is often cryptic and obscure,48 making it difficult to understand.49
- 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.50 In his introduction to his second commentary, Ibn Ezra provides three criteria for determining when one may reject or reinterpret the simple sense of a text:51 if the explanation goes against reason, contradicts another verse, or disputes tradition.52 It is these criteria which inform Ibn Ezra's distinct attitude towards aggadic and halakhic Midrashim:
- Narrative material – According to Ibn Ezra, aggadic interpretations which do not accord with another verse53 and those which contradict logic,54 might be rejected. Nonetheless, recognizing the value of "tradition," after dismissing a Midrash, Ibn Ezra will periodically add "but if it is a tradition, we will accept it".55 Elsewhere, he might maintain that the Midrash is correct in essence, but not meant to be taken at face value.56 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.57
- 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. In such cases he often suggests that the verse is being used simply as an "אסמכתא", a hook to remind one of the law.58 He notes, too, that if a verse can sustain two different interpretations, only one of which accords with that of the Sages,59 the second interpretation should be nullified in light of the Sages' explanation.60 He often speaks of the need to rely on the Sages, noting that otherwise the law cannot be properly determined.61
- 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.
- Philosophy – See Ibn Ezra's comments to Gen. 18:21 and Ps. 1:6.
- Numerology - See Ibn Ezra on Ex. 3:15.
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.62 He dismisses:
- Christian allegorical and typological interpretations as these do not match the simple, literal sense of the text63
- Karaite explanations64 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 verses65
- Homiletical exegesis which draws heavily on Midrash, seeing these as superfluous, having already been expressed by the Sages.66
- 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.67 Each of these will be discussed below.
- Grammar – Listed below are examples of some of the grammatical issues discussed by Ibn Ezra:
- Scripture often uses abridged phrases and sentences.68 Sometimes it omits prepositions.69 It might employs an adjective but leaves out the noun which it qualifies.70 Elsewhere, it omits the subject or object in a verse because it is implied by the verb used.71
- The vav is not always to be translated as "and". At times it is not to be translated. See I.E. on Gen. 1:2.
- When a verb in the singular governs a noun, the verb refers to each one of the plural. See I.E. on Gen. 49:22; Ecc.10:1.
- Scripture employs superfluous letters. See I.E. 1:5.
- Scripture at times employs the imperfect with the meaning of a perfect,72 the perfect with the meaning of an imperfect,73or the perfect as a pluperfect.74
- Reason – Ibn Ezra will reject explanations of verses which do not stand up to reason.
- Homiletical expositions of the Sages – See the discussion and examples above regarding his rejection of aggadic explanations which he finds illogical.75
- Mitzvot – Ibn Ezra notes that though we might not know the reason for all laws, it is impossible that any should refute logic.76 Thus, if the simple, literal meaning of a law appears irrational, it may be reinterpreted metaphorically.77 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.78
- 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.79 Other statements are taken allegorically to minimize the miraculous.80
- Linguistics / Philology
- Use of cognate languages – Ibn Ezra explains difficult words both by looking for biblical parallels and by turning to cognate languages such as Arabic81 or Aramaic.
Themes
- Philosophy –
- God – God is incorporeal, God is the All. Purpose of man is to know God, obey His laws, and cling to God.
- The Precepts: According to Ibn Ezra’s calculations, there are only about sixty mitzvot in the Torah, though he believed that each one has infinite implications.82 Ibn Ezra distinguished among three types of mitzvot.
- Rational laws. Ibn Ezra refers to these as pikkudim (deposits) because God deposited them in the mind, and they were known via human reasoning even before the Torah was given.83 These include civil laws and injunctions against incest, adultery and the like.84
- Symbolic precepts. This category includes commandments that serve as reminders of the rational laws or of precepts that all Israelites, both men and women, are obligated to be conscious of at all times. The Sabbath, which recalls creation, is an example.85
- Esoteric commandments. This group includes commandments that possess a purpose that only a few can fathom. An individual is obligated to observe these commandments even if he does not understand their purpose or function.86
- Polemics against the Karaites
- Astrology – Ibn Ezra often speaks of astrological phenomenon and the role of the stars in determining what will take place on earth. For example, he notes that each nation has its own unique constellation that guides it, while Hashem alone guides Israel.87 He states that the arrangement of the stars reveals what is new and destined for each day, reflecting the mind of Hashem.88
- Miracles
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.)
- R. Moshe, Ha-Kohen ibn Giqatilah(11th century)
- R. Solomon ibn Gabirol.(1020-1070 C.E.)
- Grammarians - R. Judah ibn Hayyuj ( c. 950-1000), R. Jonah ibn Janach (c. 920-c 970); R Menahchem ben Saruk (c. 910- c. 970 C.E.); Dunash ben Labrat (920-990 C.E.)
- Teachers –
- Foils –
Occasional Usage
- –
Possible Relationship.
Impact
Later exegetes89
- Rabbi Yehudah He-Chasid90
- 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.91 Ibn Ezra also impacted on the Chasidei Ashkenaz.92
