Ibn Ezra
נמצאו 10 תוצאות חיפוש
The Methodology of the Ibn Ezra: Between Traditionalism and Rationalism
Rabbi Alex Israel | שעהThis shiur explores Ibn Ezra's exegetical methodology. By closely examining his commentary, we notice that Ibn Ezra can be viewed as both a traditional and also radical commentator. These differences are highlighted particularly as we look at the differences in his approach to narrative verses law. On one hand, he is famous for adopting a heavily textual and grammatical interpretation, and has a strong allegiance to the text of the Torah. However, when it comes to law, Ibn Ezra stresses the importance of the Oral Law and the rabbinic teachings, even to the point of rejecting rational grammatical texts.
Ramses or Ra'amses - Rashi and Ibn Ezra
Rabbi David SilverbergSummary of Exegesis of Northern France and Introduction to Spanish Exegesis
Dr. Avigail RockThe peshat school of Northern France was founded by Rashi, who wrote his commentary according to the way of peshat alongside the Sages’ interpretations. Those who followed in his footsteps — R. Yosef (Mahari) Kara, the Rashbam, and R. Yosef Bekhor Shor of Orléans took this idea of peshat to an extreme, shunning use of the Sages’ words for purposes of biblical interpretation.
The distinctions between the biblical exegesis of northern France and the biblical exegesis of Spain is that the Jewish exegetes of northern France based their approaches, for the most part, on sources and ideas from Jewish tradition, which we may describe as internal concepts. These are not based at all on the ideas and outlooks of the Christian culture amidst which the exegetes resided. In contrast, the Jewish exegetes of Muslim Spain drew their tools from internal sources as well as external sources. The many domains to which the scholars of Spain had been exposed left their mark on the character of the Spanish commentaries.
R. Avraham ibn Ezra
Part 1
Dr. Avigail RockIbn Ezra, grew up in the Golden Age in Spain and thus received a wide-ranging education. On the one hand, he acquired great expertise in the works of great Jewish minds throughout the generations; on the other hand, he was also fluent in Arabic, and he was involved in the rich Muslim culture, its literature and its scientific innovations.
Ibn Ezra was not only a sharp-tongued thinker; he was a believing Jew, with a passionate love for his people and his Creator, for the Torah and its commandments - a man of science and a man of spirit.
Ibn Ezra wrote commentaries on the Torah, and various books of Neviim and Ketuvim. It appears from his words that he wrote commentaries to other books of Tanakh as well, but they have been lost. He wrote two commentaries to the Torah, Peirush Ha-katzar and Peirush Ha-arokh, the Short and Long Commentary.
Ibn Ezra’s commentaries, unlike those of the commentators of northern France, are difficult to comprehend.
In Ibn Ezra’s introduction to his commentary, he presents different approaches to biblical interpretation followed and expresses criticism of each:
- The scholars of Spanish yeshivot weaved philosophical views into their commentaries on the Torah.
- The Karaites, who deny the tradition of the Oral Torah.
- Those who understand the Torah as allegory. Ibn Ezra mainly opposes this as a path leading to Christianity.
- The homiletic exegetes in Christian lands, who do not relate to the peshat of the verses, instead following the Midrashic approach.
R. Avraham ibn Ezra
Part 2
Dr. Avigail RockIbn Ezra describes his commentary as “the book of the straight,” - a reference to following the way of peshat. Ibn Ezra explains the work as a commentary based on the fundamentals of grammar, language, and stylistic sensitivity and conforming to the requirements of logic and reason.
Ibn Ezra declares that he is not obligated to previous commentaries, referring both to Midrashic sources and the commentaries of his predecessors. However, in his commentaries to the halakhic part of the Torah, Ibn Ezra sees himself as bound to the Sages’ exegesis.
Similarly, Ibn Ezra distinguishes between two types of Midrashic sources: tradition and speculation. The Ibn Ezra feels compelled to accept a tradition but not an interpretation that they concocted of their own accord.
Ibn Ezra formulates a consistent set of linguistic and grammatical rules in his commentary:
- The formulation of rules which are adequate for all circumstances. For example he explains the word "Na" as always meaning "now".
- The meaninglessness of trivial changes; the verse uses synonyms frequently, and there need be no justification for interchanging them. Similarly, there is no reason necessary for variations in spelling. This is applied to differences between the Ten Commandments in Shemot vs. Devarim.
- The verse will often use a word to refer to multiple items, even though it appears in the text only once.
- The Torah is written generally according to chronological sequence. Despite this, sometimes there are some divergences from chronological sequence.
- The juxtaposition of the passages in the halakhic sections of the Torah is significant, not a capricious sequence of laws.
R. Avraham ibn Ezra
Part 3
Dr. Avigail RockIbn Ezra believes that it is inconceivable for the Sages’ halakhic tradition to contradict the peshat of the verses. On this point, he argues with the Rashbam, who goes as far as to explain the halakhic verses against the tradition of the Sages. As we have explained in the previous lessons, Ibn Ezra supports the view of philological pashtanut and exerts great effort to explain the verses in accordance with the rules of grammar and topical logic. However, when there is a contradiction between the peshat and the Sages’ tradition in Halakha, ibn Ezra pushes the simple meaning of the words so that it will fit with the Sages’ view, while striving to have it dovetail with the rules of grammar and language.
Despite these words of Ibn Ezra expressing the unquestionable authority of the Sages in Halakha, many times ibn Ezra veers in his interpretation from the interpretation of the halakhic ruling.
· It may be that ignorance of the halakhic ruling – due to poverty and wandering - is what causes him to interpret verses differently than the Sages.
· Alternatively, while the ibn Ezra sees himself as bound by the Sages’ legal authority, the Sages themselves do not believe that this is the verse’s intent, but they tie the law to the verse.
While ibn Ezra had a profoundly negative view of the Karaites, it is important to note that he does not hesitate to cite their interpretations if he believes they are correct. According to his view, the truth of the Oral Torah may be established not only by finding its laws in the verses of Written Torah, but by confronting the reality of the absence of many laws in the Written Torah. These exigent rules are only found in the Oral Torah, and without their existence there is no significance at all to the laws of the Written Torah.
Ibn Ezra was aware of Rashi’s status in France. Therefore, in his commentary to the Torah, ibn Ezra keeps his silence despite the fact that he disagreed with him.
Ibn Ezra conceals issue in his commentary; he embraces the phenomenon of "sod" with regard to deep concepts, issues regarding the authorship of Torah and sins of great Biblical figures.
Radak - Rav David Kimchi
Dr. Avigail RockThe Radak — R. David Kimchi — was born and active in Provence, in southern France, near Spain. The Radak was a member of a family of Spanish grammarians and exegetes. Like R. Avraham ibn Ezra, the Kimchi family brought the fundamentals of linguistics and grammar from Spain to France.
Despite the fact that Radak sees himself as a pashtan, he does not hesitate to cite derash. However, when the Radak quotes these sources, it is obvious that he has a distinction between peshat and derash.
Two principles guide the Radak in citing Midrashic sources:
- When it is difficult to resolve the peshat without the derash.
- For the lovers of derash - in order to explain the text and engage his readers.
The view of the Radak is that the Torah is not a historical tome. Those stories of the Patriarchs which have been selected to put into the Torah with all of its details must fulfill one criterion: teaching a moral lesson.
Just as one may learn from the positive acts of the forefathers, so one may learn from their negative acts. The Radak does not engage in apologetics; instead, he writes explicitly that the narratives which describe the negative acts of the Patriarchs have been written in order to help us avoid this sort of behavior.
The Radak points out consistently that the Torah often uses repetitious language, not because each word introduces new meaning, but because the verse seeks to stress the significance of a given issue. This view stands in stark contrast to that of Rashi, who argues that generally speaking, one must assign meaning to every word, as there cannot be any redundancy in the biblical text.
Rashbam and Ibn Ezra
Rabbi Dr. Martin Lockshinתאריך פרסום: 5777 | | שעה
Beginning with biographical sketches, we compare and contrast, Ibn Ezra and Rashbam, two Torah commentators who claim to look for the plain meaning of the text. Both are interested peshat at a time when others aren’t, but they are two very different people from different contexts and milieus. Their methods and comments can often be remarkably similar, but the differences are telling. We delve into the question of what peshat is. Do they both see "peshat" as the highest value in their Torah commentary, or is something else going on? We will look at some fascinating examples that highlight their respective methodologies.
Win Friends and Influence People
Rabbi Ben-Tzion SpitzIbn Ezra and Ramban
Rabbi Amnon Bazak