Commentators:R. Avraham ibn Ezra/0

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
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,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 – 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 the 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 parallels⁹² and/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".
• Synonymous language – Ibn Ezra views changes in word choice in parallel or synonymous passages as somewhat insignificant:
• 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.¹⁰⁰ Similarly, one need not be bothered by the fact that a word might be written "מלא" in one place and "חסר" in another.¹⁰¹
• 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,¹⁰² writing " הטעם כפול" or the like.‎¹⁰³  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.¹⁰⁴ 

• 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 words¹⁰⁵ or repeats a word for literary effect.¹⁰⁶
  
• דרכי המקראות (Literary Devices) – Ibn Ezra will at times note Tanakh's literary devices, explaining that seemingly anomalous phenomena are simply "the way of the text":
• 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).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 contrasts 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

¹ Ibn Ezra's father's name was actually Meir, not Ezra.  Ibn Ezra was simply the name by which the family was known. See Ibn Ezra's Introduction to his Torah commentary, where he writes: "ויהי פתח דברך מאיר, לעבדך בן עבדך מאיר. ומישועות פניך תבא עזרה, לבן אמתך הנקרא בן עזרא".  See also Tosafot Taanit 20b who points to the Ibn Ezra family name as an example of a "nickname"..

² Due to conflicting data in several manuscripts, the dates of Ibn Ezra's birth and death are disputed. For a discussion of the issue, see: י.ל. פליישר, "באיזו שנה מת רבי אברהם אבן עזרא?" בתוך: ר"א אבן עזרא: קובץ מאמרים על תולדותיו ויציוריו (תל אביב, תש"ל): 5-16. Fleischer cites a manuscript from the Vienna national library, Kraft catalog number XXXI-39, which states that Ibn Ezra died on a Monday, on the first day of 1 Adar 4927 (January 23, 1167) at the age of seventy-five. If this date is accepted, then Ibn Ezra was born in 1092.  However, in Ibn Ezra's introduction to his second commentary he states that he was 64 when he began to write it and several manuscripts include a note at the end of the second commentary to Shemot which states that he finished it in 4913 (1153). This would set his date of birth at (latest) 1088-89 and would make him 78-79 (rather than 75) in 1167.  Fleischer accepts this date of birth, but questions the 1167 date of death, preferring to accept that Ibn Ezra was 75 at death, but that he must have died earlier, in 1164.  More recently, I. Kislev, "The Relationship between the Torah Commentaries Composed by R. Abraham Ibn Ezra in France and the Significance of this Relationship for the Biographical Chronology of the Commentator", Journal of Jewish Studies 60:2 (2009): 282-297 has resolved the contradiction in a different way, demonstrating that the second commentary to Bereshit and Shemot are not part of a single edition and need not have been written in the same year.  As such Ibn Ezra need not have been 64 in 1153.

³ Despite his wanderings, the primary intellectual influences upon Ibn Ezra were still from Moslem Spain, and this appears to be how he viewed himself as well, writing of himself, "נאום אברהם בר מאיר הספרדי".

⁴ It is not clear what forced Ibn Ezra to leave Spain and begin his journeying.  In his introduction to his commentary on Eikhah, he writes, "הוצאתני מארץ ספרד חמת המציקים" but he does not specify to which troubles he is referring, the Almohad invasions or perhaps his personal penury.
Either way, his wanderings impacted his works on many fronts. Since his audience in Christians lands did not speak Arabic, he wrote in Hebrew.  This probably contributed to the fact that while the Arabic works of his predecessors (R. Saadia, Ibn Chiquitilla, and Ibn Balaam) have not survived, his have.  His travels also brought him into contact with many people, outside influences, and differing outlooks (including other sects such as the Karaites) which he would not have encountered in Moslem Spain. This both enriched his commentary (he cites many diverse people and opinions) and forced him at times to take strong polemical stances, especially against the Karaites.

⁵ According to S. Sela and G. Freudenthal, "Abraham Ibn Ezra's Scholarly Writing: A Chronological Listing", Aleph 6 (2006): 13-55,  Ibn Ezra wrote commentaries to Kohelet, Esther, Iyyov, Eikhah, Daniel, Shir HaShirim, Tehillim, Trei Asar, his first commentary to Torah, Ruth and Yeshayahu and translated the works of R. Yehuda ibn Hayyuj while in Italy.  He wrote his second commentaries to Esther, Daniel, Tehillim, Bereshit, Shir HaShirim, Shemot, and Trei Asar while in Rouen and his third commentary to Bereshit while in England.

⁶ According to Ezra-Tzion Melammed,  מפרשי המקרא (ירושלים, 1978): 678-694, Ibn Ezra refers to Rabbinic literature about 500 times, suggesting that he was somewhat proficient in the subject.  He is quoted by Tosafot on Rosh HaShanah 13a as engaging in discussion with R. Tam with regards to the Talmudic passage at hand, also attesting to his Talmudic knowledge . Nonetheless, Talmud was not Ibn Ezra's primary field of study and Rabbi Shelomo Luria even questions his competence in the field, writing of him: "לא היה בעל תלמוד". He charges that Ibn Ezra attributed Biblical laws to the Rabbis and Rabbinical laws to the Bible and claims that he permitted that which is forbidden and prohibited that which is permitted, concluding that his exegesis is not to be followed in matters of law (Rabbi Shelomo Luria in his Introduction to the Yam Shel Shelomo on Tractate Chullin). See also Ramban's somewhat harsh criticism, "והטעם הזה לא יסבל אותו אלא מי שאינו רגיל בתלמוד" (Ramban Shemot 20:7).

⁷ For discussion of Ibn Ezra's attitude towards astrology and how it influenced his exegesis, see Y. Langermann, "Some Astrological Themes in the Thought of Ibn Ezra", in Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra: Studies in the Writings of a Twelfth Century Polymath, eds. I. Twersky and J. Harris (Massachusetts, 1993): 28-55 and ש. סלע, אסטרולוגיה ופרשנות המקרא בהגותו של  אברהם אבן עזרא (רמת גן, 1999).  Ibn Ezra believed that astrology is a true science and was not only a student of the discipline but also a practitioner of its arts. He authored a number of works dealing with astrology, some of which were translated into Latin, and he played a major role in spreading the science in his travels.

⁸ Many of Ibn Ezra's poems have been collected by D. Kahana in his book, רבי אברהם אבן עזרא: קובץ חכמת הראב״ע (ורשה, תרפ"ב). See also the Ben Yehuda Project for a collection of his poems available online. In one of these, Ibn Ezra himself attests to his early poetic career, writing: "לפנים בנערים הבינותי שירים / בצואר העברים  נתתים לענקים" (ibid. p.22).  His poems are a source of much biographical information, speaking of his wanderings, poverty, and misfortunes. Thus, for instance, he humorously describes his threadbare cloak, "מעיל יש לי והוא כדמות כברה לחיטה להנפה או שעורה" (ibid, p. 11).  Elsewhere he laments his inability to make a living, "איגע להצליח ולא אוכל / כי עיותוני כוכבי שמי / לו אהיה סוחר בתכריכים / לא יגיעון אישם בכל ימי"  (ibid, p.10). One poem speaks of the illness which prompted his vow to expound upon the Torah ("ונדרתי לאל נדר י בחליי לבאר דת בהר סיני נתונה", ibid, p.70). Two of his poems are well known to all, having been incorporated among the songs sung on Shabbat, "כי אשמרה שבת" and "צמאה נפשי" (originally written as an introduction to the prayer of "נשמת כל חי").

⁹ During his wanderings it seems that Ibn Ezra supported himself by tutoring and writing commentaries for various wealthy patrons. In the introduction to his commentary on Eikhah, he writes:"ואני אברהם ב״ר מאיר מארץ מרחקים / הוצאתני מארץ ספרד חמת המציקים / וספרי אלהי בגלותי היו בידי מחוקקים".  He might also be alluding to such patrons in his introductory poem to the Torah, with a double entendre: "וכל תומכו מאושר".  It is likely for this reason that Ibn Ezra wrote more than one edition of his commentary on several books (Bereshit, Shemot, Trei Asar, Tehillim, Esther and Shir HaShirim), each for a different sponsor.

¹⁰ See the discussion in the note above.

¹¹ It is possible that his discussion in Bereshit First Commentary 25:34 regarding righteous individuals who are nonetheless poor is somewhat autobiographical.

¹² See his Second Commentary to Shemot 2:2 where, in discussing how to determine dates of birth, he writes, "I myself have tried it five times", perhaps implying that at the time of the writing, he had five children. [It is possible, however, that he is not speaking of his own family at all, but how he attempted to determine the dates of birth of other children.]

¹³ Yitzchak is reported to have converted to Islam while in Babylonia. See Chapter 3 of Al-Charizi's ספר תחכמוני where he writes, "וְיִצְחָק בְּנוֹ גָּם הוּא מִמְּקוֹר הַשִׁיר שָׁאָב. וְעַל שִירֵי הַבֵּן מִזִּיו הָאָב. אַךְ בְּבוֹאוֹ לְאַרְצוֹת מִזְרַח. כְּבוֹד ה' עָלָיו לֹא זָרָח. וְהֵסִיר מֵעָלָיו מְעִילֵי הַדָּת הַיְקָרִים. וּפָשַׁט אֶת בְּגָדָיו וְלָבַשׁ בְּגָדִים אֲחֵרִים.".  In a poem, "יריבוני עלי עזבי ברית אל" attributed to Yitzchak (though not all agree that he is fact the author), he confesses to his conversion, but claims that it was but an outward show ("ואם אומר משגע הוא "נביא א-ל, ואודנו בראשית כל תפלה, בפי אומר ולבי יענני: מכזב את ועדותך פסולה), closing with a plea for forgiveness, "כבר שבתי לצל כנפי שכינה / אבקש ממך הא-ל מחילה".

¹⁴ See Ibn Ezra's heartrending poem, "אבי הבן" where he speaks of the death of his son: "אֲבִי הַבֵּן קְרַב לִסְפֹּד, כִּי אֵל מִמְּךָ רִחַק  / אֶת-בִּנְךָ אֶת-יְחִידְךָ אֲשֶׁר אָהַבְתָּ, אֶת יִצְחָק... אַךְ לָרִיק יָגַעְתִּי וְיָלַדְתִּי לַבֶּהָלָה / כִּי-אֵיךְ יִשְׂמַח לִבִּי – וַיִּגְוַע וַיָּמָת יִצְחָק".  Some, however, have suggested that the poem is not a lament over Yitzchak's death, but over his apostasy (see the previous note).

¹⁵ Ibn Ezra was on close terms with Rabbi Yehuda HaLevi. In his Biblical commentary, he cites him over 20 times. Various traditions even suggest that there were family ties between the two. Some claim that Ibn Ezra's son Yitzchak was married to Yehuda HaLevi's daughter.  [See שלמה ד. גויטיין, "רבנו יהודה הלוי לאור כתבי הגניזה", תרביץ כ"ד (תשט"ו - 1955): 141-143]. Others claim that Ibn Ezra and Rabbi Yehuda HaLevi were cousins, while yet others suggest that Ibn Ezra married R. Yehuda HaLevi's daughter [See, for example, Abarbanel on Shemot 2:2, where he refers to Yehuda HaLevi as Ibn Ezra's "חותן". See also the discussion of E. Fleischer and M. Gil in their book יהודה הלוי ובני חוגו (ירושלים, 2001)]. However, there are no contemporary records that substantiate these traditions. Shelomo Pirchon (מחברת הערוך ד:ב) attests to Ibn Ezra's accompanying R. Yehuda HaLevi to Africa and a letter from the Cairo Geniza reveals that Ibn Ezra’s son, Yitzchak, accompanied R. Yehuda HaLevi on his journey to Egypt [See ש. ד. גויטיין, "הפרשה האחרונה בחיי רבנו יהודה הלוי", תרביץ כד (תשט"ו): 27.]  The two were on such intimate terms that after R. Yehuda HaLevi's death, Ibn Ezra wrote a poem in his honor, imagining the great poet inviting him to join him in the next word.

¹⁶ Rabbi Moses ibn Ezra (c. 1055- c.1135) was a prominent poet from a powerful family with connections to the court of Granada. He and Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra were not related.

¹⁷ Rabbi Joseph ibn Tzadik was a dayyan (religious judge), philosopher and poet. His work Olam Katan (The Microcosm) was praised by Maimonides and is alluded to in Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch.

¹⁸ Rabbi Jacob ben Meir Tam (1100 -1171) was a grandson of Rashi, a tosafist, and and one of the leading Talmudic authorities of his age. Ibn Ezra made the acquaintance of R. Tam in his journeys from southern to northern France. The two exchanged poems, with Ibn Ezra writing, "ומי הביא לצרפתי בבית שיר, ועבר זר במקום קודש ורמס. ולו שיר יעקב ימתק כמו מן, אני שמש וחם שמשי ונמס" and Rabbenu Tam replying: "אבי עזרי ישיבוהו סעיפיו,  אשר נתן ידידו בין אגפיו. אני עבד לאברהם למקנה, ואקוד אשתחוה לאפיו". Ibn Ezra, then, pays his respect in turn: "הנכון אל כביר עם ירומם, להשפיל ראש במכתב אל בזוי עם. וחלילה למלאך האלוקים, אשר יקוד וישתחווה לבל עם."

¹⁹ See his introduction to Kohelet where he speaks of leaving Spain in haste and fear, "ומארצו נפרד, אשר היא בספרד, ואל רומי ירד, כנפש נבהלת."  The sentiment is echoed in his introduction to Eikhah, where he similarly speaks of being forced to leave due to oppressors or other troubles: "ואני אברהם ב״ר מאיר מארץ מרחקים / הוצאתני מארץ ספרד חמת המציקים".

²⁰ M. Cohen, in his work, Under Crescent and Cross (New Jersey, 1994): 183, notes the uniqueness of the elegy, being the only “clear cut example of a poetical Jewish reaction to an outbreak of Islamic persecution.”  The elegy reads, in part, "אֲהָהּ יָרַד עֲלֵי סְפָרַד רַע מִן הַשָּׁמַיִם / וְסֶפֶד רַב עֲלֵי מַעֲרָב לְזֹאת רָפוּ יָדַיִם / עֵינִי עֵינִי יֹרְדָה מַּיִם / בְּכוֹת עֵינַי בְּמַעְיָנַי עַל עִיר אַלְיוֹסְנָהּ / בְּאֵין אָשָׁם לְבָדָד שָׂם הַגּוֹלָה שָׁכְנָה / בְּאֵין סַלֵּף עֲדֵי אֶלֶף שְׁנַיִם וְשִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה / וּבָא יוֹמָהּ וְנָד עִמָּהּ וְגַם הָיְתָה כְּאַלְמָנָה / בְּאֵין תּוֹרָה וְאֵין מִקְרָא וְהַמִּשְׁנָה נִטְמְנָה". See here for the full text.

²¹ 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.

²² Many of these have been translated into English:

• Torah: Ibn Ezra’s Commentary on the Pentateuch, translated & annotated by H. Norman Strickman & Arthur Silver (New York, 1988-2004).  See also: Translation of Ibn Ezra's Commentary on the Pentateuch, translated by Allan R. Benyowitz (2006).
• Yeshayahu: Ibn Ezra on Isaiah, ed. and translated by Michael Friedlander (London, 1873).
• Tehillim: Abraham Ibn Ezra’s Commentary on the First Book of Psalms, translated & annotated by H. Norman Strickman (Boston, 2009, 2016).
• Shir HaShirim: Ibn Ezra's Commentary on The Song of Songs, Translations and Annotations, by Richard A. Block (Hebrew Union College, 1982). 
• Kohelet: Ibn Ezra's Commentary on Kohelet has been translated and annotated by H. Norman Strickman and is available here.

²³ It has been suggested that due to Ibn Ezra's wanderings and financial difficulties, if he found a patron who requested him to write a commentary on a specific book, even if he had already done so, he would write another. This is supported by his introduction to Safah Berurah where Ibn Ezra shares how a student had asked him to write a book about grammar, and Ibn Ezra was hesitant due to his having already composed several grammatical works in Rome, yet with the student's urging he acquiesced to write another. See discussion in א. מונדשיין "שיטה שלישית לפירושו של אברהם אבן עזרא לתורה?" בתוך:אור ליעקב מחקרים במקרא ובמגילות מדבר יהודה  (ירושלים, תשנ"ז):167-169.

²⁴ He refers to the first commentary as "Sefer HaYashar". In his Introduction to the second work he writes that he was 64 at the time of its composition and notes that he is writing it in fulfillment of a vow made when he was extremely sick. The commentary has survived only through Parashat Lekh Lekha.

²⁵ On the relationship between the second commentaries to Bereshit and Shemot and whether they were part of one edition, see I. Kislev, "The Relationship between the Torah Commentaries Composed by R. Abraham Ibn Ezra in France and the Significance of this Relationship for the Biographical Chronology of the Commentator", Journal of Jewish Studies 60:2 (2009): 282-297 and compare U. Simon, "ר' אברהם אבן עזרא - הפירוש הקצר לתורה, הפירוש הארוך לבראשית ושמות וקטעי הפירוש שבעל-פה לבראשית" available here.

²⁶ According to S. Sela and G. Freudenthal (ibid) the first commentaries were all written  between 1140-1145, while Ibn Ezra was in Rome and Lucca.  A colophon dates the commentary on Kohelet to 1140.  The fact that it does not reference any of Ibn Ezra's other works and mentions his flight to Rome, suggests that it was the first work written there.  Several of his other works also contain colophons or references which aid in their dating. For example, in his commentary to Bereshit 33:10, Ibn Ezra notes that it was written while in Lucca.
Ibn Ezra's second commentaries were written in Rouen and date between 1153-1157. A colophon to the book of Daniel dates it explicitly to 1155, a colophon to the commentary on Psalms and another to Trei Asar date each to 1156 (one to Elul, the second to Tevet) and a colophon to Exodus dates it to 1153 while Ibn Ezra's comments to Exodus 12:2 attest to its being written in Rouen.

²⁷ These cover parts of Parashat Vayishlakh (33:1-35:26) and Vayechi (47:28-49:10).  In the colophon to each section, it states that they were recorded by R.Yosef b. Yaakov of  Maudeville, in his words, but according to the substance of what ibn Ezra had taught. See Bereshit 35 and 47.

²⁸ See his comments to Devarim 32:4 where he references an explanation to a verse in Yehoshua, Devarim 29:20 where he references his comments to Shofetim 11:21 (see also Ramban Vayikra 27:29 who cites Ibn Ezra on this verse), Shemot First Commentary 27:21 and Tehillim Second Commentary 51:2 where he refers the reader  to explanations on Shemuel I 3:3 and Shemuel II 12, and Devarim 21:17 regarding Melakhim II 2:9. Radak also cites Ibn Ezra's explanation of Shemuel I 27:10.
Ibn Ezra also references his explanations to Yirmeyahu (see IE Vayikra 20:20), Yechezekel (See IE First Cmmentary Shemot 28:41), Mishlei (See IE Shemot 31:3), Ezra-Nechemyah (see IE Devarim 23:2) and Divrei HaYamim (see IE Vayikra 26:34).

²⁹ U. Simon, "Abraham Ibn Ezra" in HBOT 1:2 (Gottingen, 2000): 377-387 notes that already in the fourteenth century, supercommentaries attest that they did not have any of Ibn Ezra's commentaries to the Former Prophets, Yirmeyahu, Yechezkel, Mishlei, Ezra-Nechemyah or Divrei HaYamim.

³⁰ See U. Simon, ibid..

³¹ Ed. M. Wolinsky (Berlin, 1923).

³² Ed. G. H. Lipmann (Furth, 1827).

³³ Ed. G. H. Lipmann (Frankfurt, 1843).

³⁴ Ed. G. H. Lipmann (Furth 1839)

³⁵ Ed. Aloni (Jerusalem, 1975).

³⁶ 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.  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).

³⁷ The essays are occasionally introduced with the words "Avraham the Author says", or "the Words of Avraham".

³⁸ See Shemot Second Commentary 3:15 and 33:21.

³⁹ See the Shemot Second Commentary 20:1.

⁴⁰ See Shemot Second Commentary 32:1.

⁴¹ See Shemot First Commentary 33:18 and Shemot Second Commentary 33:21

⁴² 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.

⁴³ 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..

⁴⁴ This is likely what sparked so many supercommentaries.

⁴⁵ This distinction is laid out already in his introduction to Torah (Second Commentary), 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". [See, similarly, his introduction 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".]  As such, there is a clear distinction in Ibn Ezra's approach to narrative and legal portions of Torah. He interprets the former according to "the simple sense" of the text, whereas when explaining the latter, he relies on the Sages.
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.

⁴⁶ 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).

⁴⁷ For example, see Bereshit First Commentary 11:29 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.  For other examples, see: Bereshit First Commentary 19:12, 22:19, 24:2, 25:1,39:6, Shemot First Commentary 24:14, Shemot Second Commentary 14:30
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).  See, for example, Devarim 26:5

⁴⁸ For examples, see Bereshit First Commentary 22:6 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.  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 Bereshit First Commentary 31:19, 38:1, 46:27, Bereshit Second Commentary 11:28, Shemot Second Commentary 7:24, 18:21, 20:1, and 25:5.

⁴⁹ See, for instance, his Bereshit First Commentary 11:29, 22:6, Bereshit Second Commentary 11:28, Shemot Second Commentary 1:15,15:22, 25:5, 25:18, 26:18-28, Yeshayahu 1:1 and Amos First Commentary 5:25.  In many of these cases Ibn Ezra uses language similar to  "ואם קבלה היא... נסמוך על הקבלה."

⁵⁰ 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.  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 Eikhah: מהם חידות וסודות ומשלים גבוהים עד שחקים, ומהם להרויח לבות נלאות בפרקים עמוקים, ומהם לאמץ נכשלים ולמלאות הריקים.]
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."

⁵¹ See, for example, Bereshit First Commentary 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).

⁵² 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 Second Commentary 13:9)

⁵³ He writes, "כי יש מקומות שידרשו בו קדמונינו לזכר ולאסמכתא בעלמא, והם ידעו הפשט כי להם נתנה כל חכמה" (Ibn Ezra Bereshit Lexical Commentary Introduction).  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: Bereshit First Commentary 16:3, Bereshit Second Commentary 1:28, Shemot First Commentary 12:14, Shemot First Commentary 20:7, 21:8-11 (where he lays out the principle explicitly), Shemot Second Commentary 20:20, 21:8, Vayikra 19:20, 21:2, 22:7 and 23:40.

⁵⁴ See for instance, Shemot Second Commentary 12:5 12:6, 21:2, 21:24, Shemot First Commentary 23:19, Vayikra 23:11, 23:40, 25:5.

⁵⁵ 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.  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.  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 Ancient Israel to Modern Judaism: Intellect in Quest of Understanding Vol II, (Georgia, 1989): 173-186 who elaborates on this point.

⁵⁶ See, for example, his comments to Shemot Second Commentary 12:24 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.  However, he explains, one must rely on the Sages that it refers instead only to the Pesach mentioned earlier. For other examples, see Shemot First Commentary 13:9, Vayikra 21:2, 25:45, Bemidbar 5:7 or 15:38-39.

⁵⁷ See, for example, the First Commentary Shemot 21:24, 35:3 (על כן אנחנו צריכים בדברי כל המצות לקבלה ומסורת ותורה שבעל פה), Vayikra 11:8, Vayikra 12:6, 20:9, 25:30, Devarim 16:7.

⁵⁸ See, for instance, his interpretations in Shemot Second Commentary 13:7and Devarim 25:6. For discussion of such instances, see M. Lockshin, "Tradition or Context", ibid.

⁵⁹ He discusses the various approaches in both versions of his Torah commentary, but lists them in a different order.

⁶⁰ He notes that only when a verse goes against reason might one interpret it metaphorically, but "כל דבר שהדעת לא תכחישנו, כפשוטו ומשפטו נפרשנו".

⁶¹ Ibn Ezra often refers to them as  "המכחישים" or "צדוקין".  He mentions several explicitly by name: Anan, Binyamin, Ben Mashiach.

⁶² He also notes that such pieces tend to be above the head of the masses: "ומנפשות אנשי דורנו נשגבה" and do not contribute to their understanding of Torah.

⁶³ He writes, "ואחר שימצאו המדרשים בספרי הקדמונים, ולמה ייגעונו לכותבם שנית אלה האחרונים".

⁶⁴ For a more comprehensive list and many examples, see עזרא ציון מלמד, "מפרשי המקרא" (ירושלים, תשל"ח): 694-708.

⁶⁵ Ibn Ezra notes that often a verse will be lacking a subject as it is self explanatory. See Bereshit First Commentary 48:1-2, Vayikra 4:23 Bemidbar 26:59, Devarim 24:6 and others.

⁶⁶ Ibn Ezra explains that in such cases the noun is often implied by the verb used. Thus, Tanakh writes only "וְהִנֵּה בֵּרַכְתָּ בָרֵךְ" (Bemidbar 23:11), and not "הִנֵּה בֵּרַכְתָּ ברכה" for the blessing is implied. See Shemot Second Commentary 1:10 where he lays out the principle and brings several examples. See also Bemidbar 23:20, Yeshayahu 7:7, Tehillim Second Commentary 5:4, and 33:9. Sometimes,too, Tanakh will leave out an object even if it not implied.  See Bemidbar 16:1-2.

⁶⁷ See, for example, Shemot Second Commentary 4:13, Eikhah Lexical Commentary 1:14, Tehillim Second Commentary 83:19 where Ibn Ezra notes that the word "אשר" is simply assumed.  In Yeshayahu 1:6, Kohelet 2:24 he points to a missing "רק", while in Bemidbar 21:33, 22:23 and 23:3, he points to a missing "אל".

⁶⁸ See Shemot Second Commentary 12:18,  38:21, Vayikra 21:11..

⁶⁹ According to Ibn Ezra, a noun which is prefaced by a definite article, cannot be attached to another noun in סמיכות form.  When Tanakh does so, one must recognize that this is an abridged form and the second noun has been omitted for brevity. See, for example, Bereshit First Commentary 2:9 where he points out that the name "וְעֵץ הַדַּעַת טוֹב וָרָע" is really short for "ועץ הדעת דעת טוב ורע" and that "וְהַנְּבוּאָה עֹדֵד הַנָּבִיא" is an abridged form of "והנבואה נבואת עודד הנביא".  He notes the phenomenon quite often. See Bereshit First Commentary 6:17, 24:67, Bemidbar 28:4, Bemidbar 34:2, Tehillim Second Commentary 45:7 and123:4.

⁷⁰ At other times, Ibn Ezra uses the similar phrase, "משרת / משמש בעבור אחר".

⁷¹ Thus, he explains that the word "מכה" in the phrase " וּמַכֵּה אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ" (Shemot 21:15) applies both to the father and mother, as if written "וּמַכֵּה אָבִיו ומכה אִמּוֹ".  See Kohelet 8:1 where Ibn Ezra brings many examples.  See also Bereshit First Commentary 6:13, 20:16, 31:25, Shemot Second Commentary 33:20, Vayikra 22:2, and others. On the relationship between the language of "מושך עצמו ואחר עמו"  and "דרך קצרה" and how the two methodologies compare, see: י. חגי, "שימוש משותף במונחי "המשכה קדמית" ובמונח "דרך קצרה" בפירושי ראב"ע למקרא", בית מקרא ל"ה:ד' (תש"ן): 367-373.

⁷² See, for example, Devarim 1:5.

⁷³ See, for example, Tehillim Second Commentary 30:6, 116:1, Yeshayahu 21:8, and 40:6.

⁷⁴ See Bereshit First Commentary 25:24, Vayikra 11:43, Bemidbar 11:1, Amos Second Commentary 8:8, Tehillim Second Commentary 26:7.

⁷⁵ See, for example, Yeshayahu 13:22 where he states that only the אהו"י letters may be interchanged one with another, Bereshit First Commentary 8:2 where he argues against switching a כ"ף and a גמ"ל and Yeshayahu 21:15 where he dismisses the possibility that a נו"ן and למ"ד can be switched.

⁷⁶ For example, he notes that the phrase "לְבַעֲבוּר נַסּוֹת אֶתְכֶם" (Shemot Second Commentary 20:16) should be read as if written "בַעֲבוּר נַסּוֹת אֶתְכֶם", without the למ"ד. For other examples, see Eikhah Lexical Commentary 1:17, Yeshayahu 33:1, Bemidbar 21:1, or Devarim 23:19.

⁷⁷ Some examples include: מחנה (Bereshit First Commentary 32:9, יד (Shemot Second Commentary 17:12), את (Bemidbar 11:15; see other examples there), ארץ (Bereshit 12:6, Bemidbar 32:5, Devarim 31:16), גן (Kohelet 2:5). See also Bereshit First Commentary 13:10 regarding ככר and אש.

⁷⁸ See Bereshit First Commentary 30:38.

⁷⁹ See Shemot Second Commentary 15:1, 33:7, Devarim 32:8, Yeshayahu 14:11, Yoel First Commentary 4:3, Tehillim Second Commentary 73:17 and 103:7.

⁸⁰ For several examples, see: Bereshit First Commentary 17:16,  Shemot First Commentary 12:17, 15:13, Yeshayahu 41:14, Rut 4:5 and Esther First Commentary 4:16.

⁸¹ See, for instance, First Commentary Bereshit 1:9, 2:8, 24:64, 31:24, 48:12, Second Commentary Bereshit 4:19, 6:10, 11:31, First Commentary Shemot 11:1, 9-10, Second Commentary Shemot 4:19, 11:1, 18:6, 19:9 and many more.

⁸² See Bereshit Lexical Commentary 1:2, 5:5, 11:6, Bereshit First Commentary 13:6, 16:7, 29:2, 31:7 and many more.

⁸³ This attitude is expressed emphatically in his introduction to his Second Commentary: "והעד הנאמן בכל פירושנו הוא: שכל הלב שנטע בקרבנו קדושנו, והמכחיש הדעת כמכחש הרגשותינו, כי לאנשי לבב נתנה תורת אבותינו. ואם מצאנו כתוב בתורה שאין הדעת סובלת, נוסף או נתקן כפי היכולת, על דרך משפט הלשון, אשר חקק אדם הראשון."

⁸⁴ For one example, see Shemot Second Commentary 25:5 where he discusses the question of where the nation had 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.

⁸⁵ See his Second Commentray Shemot 20:2, "וחלילה חלילה, שתהיה מצוה אחת מהן מכחשת הדעת".

⁸⁶ See his Ibn Ezra Shemot Second Commentary 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".

⁸⁷ As another example, see Ibn Ezra's defense of the Sages' non literal understanding of "an eye for an eye" in Ibn Ezra Shemot Second Commentary 21:24. [Cf. also Shemot Second Commentary 13:9 where he notes that one need not read the verse allegorically since it does not refute logic if read literally.]

⁸⁸ See, for example his comments to Hoshea First Commentary 1:1 where he dismisses the possibility that Hoshea 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 his side and other bizarre actions commanded to prophets.

⁸⁹ 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.

⁹⁰ See his commentary to Vayikra 19:23 regarding Orlah and Kashrut.  See also Vayikra 13:45 and his understanding of several of the laws relating to Tzara'at.

⁹¹ In this, he stands in contrast to Rashbam, who will rarely turn to cognate languages, preferring to let the text explain itself.

⁹² See, for example his discussion of the word צוהר in  Bereshit First Commentary 6:16, ברית in Bereshit 6:18, משכית in Vayikra 26:1.

⁹³ Such rules often help him determine the word's root. See, for example his discussion in Bereshit First Commentary 7:4 (regarding יקום), Shemot First Commentary 18:9 (regarding ויחד),

⁹⁴ See Ibn Ezra's conclusion to his second commentary on Shir HaShirim where he speaks of the close connection between Hebrew and Arabic,  justifying why he will often explain a Biblical word by looking to the cognate language.  For some of many cases where he turns to Arabic, see Bereshit First Commentary 25:20 30:11, 41:23,  Shemot Second Commentary 3:2, 12:9, 21:18, 23:19, 24:6, Vayikra 11:13.

⁹⁵ For examples, seeBereshit First Commentary 12:9, 14:23, 37:3, Shemot First Commentary 21:22, 26:5, Devarim 33:3, Yeshayahu 38:12, 44:15 or 55:12.

⁹⁶ He notes that both languages use the "majestic plural" (First Commentary Berehist 1:1) and invoke euphemisms which speak of the opposite of what is intended (Bemidbar 12:1)

⁹⁷ See, for instance, First Commentary Bereshit 1:2 (comparing the vav of the predicate with "פ"ה הרפה" in Arabic), Second Commentary Shemot 12:43 (showing how  "בו",  can mean "ממנו" in both languages), Shemot 15:1 (regarding how in both languages  the word "then" will precede a future tense verb which is being used to express a past action).

⁹⁸ See, for example, his discussion of the term בית סהר in Bereshit 39:21 and חרטומים in First Commentary Bereshit 41:8.

⁹⁹ See, for instance, First Commentary Bereshit 33:14, 38:2, 38:29, Shemot 14:25, Second Commentary Shemot 16:4-5, Vayikra 20:4-5, Yeshayahu 21:1 and others.

¹⁰⁰ See his extensive discussion in Shemot Second Commentary 20:1 where he addresses the differences between the two versions of the Decalogue and other parallel texts.  See also Shemot 11:5, 18:21, 32:9, and Devarim 5:5.

¹⁰¹ See his introduction to the first commentary where he writes, "ולא אזכיר טעמי אנשי המסורת ,למה זו מלאה, ולמה זו נחסרת".  See also Second Commentary Shemot 18:21, 20:1, and 25:31.

¹⁰² In this, he stands in contrast to the midrashic tendency to view Torah as omnisiginificant.

¹⁰³ See, for instance, First Commentary Bereshit 49:6, 17ת 25, Second Commentary Shemot 24:10, Bemidbar 10:35,  21:28, 23:7, 18, 21 and 24:17, Kohelet 3:16 and others.

¹⁰⁴ In prose narrative sections, doubling might indeed be significant, with each phrase coming to teach something unique.

¹⁰⁵ For examples, see his commentary to Bereshit 3:1 and examples there, his Second commentary to Shemot 22:5, Yeshayahu 45:11-12, Michah 1:14, Tzefanya 2:4, Chaggai 1:9, Tehillim 86:1, Kohelet 7:6.

¹⁰⁶ See First Commentary Bereshit 19:24, First Commentary Shemot 14:11. Second Commentary Shemot 20:19, and Vayikra 26:44.

¹⁰⁷ For examples, see Vayikra 8:13, 16:9 and 11, Bemidbar 7:13-19, 32:2 and 5, and Devarim 29:23.

¹⁰⁸ Thus, for example, he notes that in Malakhi 1:2-3, the verse states, "אָח עֵשָׂו לְיַעֲקֹב" and then first addresses Yaakov, "וָאֹהַב אֶת יַעֲקֹב" and only afterwards returns to Esav "וְאֶת עֵשָׂו שָׂנֵאתִי".  For other examples, see Second Commentary Shemot 17:7, Bemidbar 6:16, Yeshayahu 56:6, First Commentary Yoel 3:3, First Commentary Amos 2:11,  Second Commentary Tehillim 74:16, Ruth 1:5.

¹⁰⁹ See Shemot 8:22 (where he compares the Egyptian loathing of sheep-eaters to Indians of his day), or Shemot 28:36 (where he uses knowledge of the clothing of his own time to understand various Priestly garments).  See also Bereshit 24:2, 40:12, Shemot 1:15,  7:15, 12:7,  Vayikra 19:28, Bemidbar 13:19, Devarim 14:1 and 18:10.

¹¹⁰ See First Commentary Bereshit 1:26, 21:9, 24:2, 25:27, 27:23, 30:30, 41:10, 42:24, 46:4, 49:9-10, Second Commentary Shemot 3:22, 12:9, 20:7, 19:3, 21:2, 23:43, 38:8, Devarim 21:3.

¹¹¹ In this, he differs from, and argues with, R. Saadia who attempts such identifications.  See Ibn Ezra's sharp criticism of him in First Commentary Bereshit 2:11, and his rejection of his identifications in First Commentary Bereshit 2:12,  4:19, Second Commentary Shemot 12:22, 28:9, and Vayikra 11:13.

¹¹² See, for example, Vayikra 14:4.

¹¹³ See, for example, Bereshit 27:19, 45:26,  Shemot 20:7,  Vayikra 26:26, and Devarim 22:5.

¹¹⁴ He uses the term "אין מוקדם ומאוחר" about ten times, but speaks of achronology in many other places as well.  For several examples, see First Commentary Bereshit 6:3, 11:31-32, 12:1, 16:7, 24:64, 29:12, 38:1, Second Commentary Bereshit 5:23, First Commentary Shemot 17:14,  Second Commentary Shemot 4:19, 16:15, 16:32, 18:1, 20:20, 32:11, 32:35, 33:7, Vayikra 25:1, Bemidbar 11:35, 30:2 and Devarim 31:1,14-24.

¹¹⁵ See, for instance, his comments to Shemot 32:11 (Second Commentary) or Vayikra 25:1.

¹¹⁶ See Second Commentary Shemot 18:1 where he explains that the text juxtaposes Yitro's arrival with the battle of Amalek (even though he only arrived later) so as to contrast the two and highlight the goodness of Yitro. See similarly his comments to Bereshit 38:1, where he suggests that the Yehuda and Tamar story is placed where it is so that Yehuda's actions with Tamar can be contrasted with Yosef's rejection of Mrs. Potiphar.  See also Shemot 16:32, where he suggests the statement regarding the manna is placed there to highlight the miracle.

¹¹⁷ See First Commentary Bereshit 2:8, where he notes that "ויטע" means "וכבר נטע", and see the other examples discussed above.

¹¹⁸ See, for example, Second Commentary Shemot 21:2, 22:4-6, 27:20, Vayikra Chapter 19, Devarim 15:1, 16:18, and other comments throughout Parshiot Shofetim and Ki Tetze.

¹¹⁹ See, for instance, Devarim 24:6 where he dismisses the Karaite's metaphoric reading of the phrase "לֹא יַחֲבֹל רֵחַיִם וָרָכֶב" to refer to sexual acts, which relies on the verse's connection to the earlier "וְשִׂמַּח אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ", explaining, "והסומכין על הסמך הפרשיות איננה טענה, כי כל מצוה עומדת בפני עצמה, והסמיכות כדרך דרש".

¹²⁰ See his Second Commentary Shemot 21:2, "אומר לך כלל לפני שאחל לפרש, כי כל משפט או מצוה, כל אחד עומד בפני עצמו. ואם יכולנו למצוא טעם למה דבק זה המשפט אל זה או זאת המצוה אל זאת, נדבק בכל יכולתנו". 

¹²¹ See his lengthy explanation of the issue in Second Commentary Shemot 19:20.

¹²² See Hoshea 4:6.

¹²³ See First Commentary Bereshit 6:6 and Second Commentary Shemot 13:17,  Shemot 32:14 (here, he brings several other examples of anthropomorphic language as well) and First Commentary Yonah 3:10,

¹²⁴ 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.

¹²⁵ See for example, his discussion in First Commentary Bereshit 20:12 and 27:19.

¹²⁶ See Second Commentary Shemot 4:20, where he notes that Moshe, too, erred in bringing his wife and children back to Egypt. [Fora fuller discussion of Ibn Ezra's understanding of that story, see Mystery at the Malon.]

¹²⁷ See Second Commentary Bereshit 11:8 where he suggests that the development of languages was the natural result of the dispersal and miht have taken place over generations. See, too, Devarim 8:4 where he suggests that the endurance of the people's clothing in the wilderness period was similalrly the result of natural processes.  See also 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 and does not imply a change in the natural order. 

¹²⁸ See, for example his Second Commentary to Shemot 14:27 where he argues against those who try to explain that the Splitting of the Sea was a natural phenomenon. See also First Commentary Bereshit 3:1 (regarding the snake in Eden), First Commentary Shemot 16:5 and Second Commentary 16:13 (regarding the manna) and Bemidbar 22:28 (regarding Bilam's takling donkey).

¹²⁹ Already in his introductions he brings the Karaites as one of four approaches which he rejects.  For some of many examples where he refutes Karaitic positions, see First Commentary Shemot 21:25,26, 32, 22:28, 23:19, 35:3, Vayikra 11:19, 26, 19:20, 23:11, 40, 25:9, Devarim 12:17, 16:7 22:12, 24:6

¹³⁰ See First Commentary Bereshit 21:14 (regarding the banishment of Hagar and Yishmael), Bereshit 25:34 (regarding the sale of the birthright).

¹³¹ 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.

¹³² 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.

¹³³ Radak, in contrast, discusses the phenomenon at length in his comments to Shemuel II 15:21, suggesting that it is the result of doubt regarding the original version.

¹³⁴ See his comments to Vayikra 11:21, Tehillim 100:3,

¹³⁵ He does not view such cases as evidence that there might have been an error in the transmission of the text.

¹³⁶ See his Sefer Tzachuit 31:3 regarding the difference in name between דודנים in Bereshit 10:4 and  רודנים in Divrie Hayamim I 1:7: "ויש אומרים בעבור היות הדל"ת והרי"ש דומים בכתב, על כן דדנים רדנים דעואל רעואל. ועל דעתי שהם שני שמות לאדם אחד כמשפט".

¹³⁷ See his introduction to his first commentary, First Commentary Bereshit 18:1-17, Bemidbar 11:15 and 12:12.  Cf. Iyyob7:20 and 32:3 where he allows for the possibility.

¹³⁸ See his commentary to Chavakuk 3:2-3 and Iyyov 36:31-32 where he disagrees with R. Moshe ibn Chiquitilla for understanding the verses as if there were no break between them.

¹³⁹ See First Commentary Bereshit 3:22, Yeshayahu 1:9 or Second Commentary Tehillim 20:10.

¹⁴⁰ See his comments to Devarim 1:1-3 (where he mentions also Bereshit 12:6, 22:14, Devarim 3:19 and 31:9 and alludes to Devarim 34), implying that all these were additions of later prophets.  In Devarim 34:1 he writes explicitly that Yehoshua authored the last verses of Torah. Ibn Ezra also questions traditional opinions regarding the authorship of certain works in the Prophets and Writings. See his enigmatic comment on Yeshayahu 40:1 which suggests that the second part of Yeshayahu might have been written in a later era. See also his commentary to Iyyov 2:11 where he questions the Sages' attribution of the work to Moshe and suggests that it might even be a translation.
It should be noted that elsewhere Ibn Ezra attacks others who suggest that certain sections of Tanakh might have been written in a later era.  It is possible that in such cases his disagreement is exegetical rather than fundamental. See, for example, First Commentary Bereshit 36:31 and his sharp criticism of Yitzchaki who proposes that the chapter was written in the time of Yehoshafat or Bemidbar 21:1 where Ibn Ezra argues against hose who think Yehoshua authored the verse.

¹⁴¹ For example, he notes that each nation has its own unique constellation that guides it, while Hashem alone guides Israel (Devarim 4:19-20) He states that the arrangement of the stars reveals what is new and destined for each day, reflecting the mind of Hashem ( Ibn Ezra Tehillim 19:2-5 and Tehillim 69:29).

¹⁴² At times even when he disagrees, he respectss R. Saadia's opinion. For example in Iyyov 38:19-24, he writes, "אף על פי שדבריו נכונים אינן מענין הפסוקים". Elsewherre, thouh, he might respond somewhat sharply.  See, for example, Second Commentray Shemot 34:1, where he writes of R. Saadia's explanation: "אלה כדברי חלום לא מעלין ולא מורידין".

¹⁴³ See  עזרא ציון מלמד, מפרשי המקרא (ירושלים, 1978): 664-669

¹⁴⁴ See: א. סימון, "אחרית דבר: הפן הפולמוסי של יסוד מורא", ר' אברהם אבן עזרא יסוד מורה וסוד התורה, מהדורת מ' כהן וא' סימון (רמת גן, תשס"ד): 216-217.

¹⁴⁵ See: E. Margaliot "היחס שבין פירוש הרשב"ם לפירוש הראב"ע על התורה", ספר אסף, (ירושלים, תשי"ג): 357-369 who points to seven explanations in Ibn Ezra's second commentary to Shemot which he believes were influenced by Rashbam's comments. [He points to Ibn Ezra on Shemot 4:10,14, 7:1, 11:11, 20:21, and 25:6,9.]  See also discussions by A. Mondschein, "לשאלת היחס בין פירושיהם של ראב"ע ורשב"ם לתורה: בחינה מחודשת, תעודה ט"ז-י"ז (תשס"א): 22-29," who concludes that Ibn Ezra first gained access to Rashbam's commentary when in England, though he likely heard about individual comments earlier, and I. Kislev, "הזיקה בין פירושיהם של ראב"ע ורשב"ם: סוגיית מרכיבי הקטורת", תרביץ ע"ח (תשס"ט): 61-80, who attempts to show that when Ibn Ezra wrote his second commentary he was very familiar with Rashbam's commentary.

¹⁴⁶ See her article, "תגובתו של ר' אברהם אבן עזרא לפירושו הדקדוקי של ר' שמואל בן מאיר", ‎ש"י לשרה יפת,‎ (Jerusalem, 2007): 195-216.

¹⁴⁷ For discussion see J. Jacobs, "Does Rashbam's Commentary on the Torah Acknowledge the Commentaries of R. Abraham ibn Ezra", Journal of Jewsih Studies LXI:2 (2010): 291-304 and I. Kislev "הפשטות המתחדשים בכל יום: פירושו הקצר של רבי אברהם אבן עזרא לתורה כמקור לרשב"ם בפירושו לתורה".

¹⁴⁸ See J. Dan, Rabbi Judah He-Hasid, (Israel, 2005):122-130 and J. Lifshitz, One God; Many Images :Dialectical Thought In Hasidei Ashkenaz (Israel, 2015): 68-72.

¹⁴⁹ For discussion, see H. Norman Strickman, Abraham ibn Ezra's Yesod Mora Vol. 12: 159-165 and I. Twersky, "Did R. Abraham ibn Ezra Influence Maimonides?" in Rabbi. Abraham ibn Ezra: Studies In The Writings Of a Twelfth Century Jewish Polymath (Massachusetts, 1993).