355) R. Moshe Ibn Gigatila: The Psalms are just prayers

Introduction

 

In the previous post, The Psalms are not prayers, we saw how Rav Saadia Gaon held the unusual view that psalms may not be used as prayers and that, like the Torah itself they are meant only to be studied but not prayed. Psalms are not liturgy. According to Rav Saadia, the psalms were used as a strictly controlled and regulated ritual during Temple times, but never as liturgy (supplications or prayers). On this view, the psalms were never an ‘early prayer book’ as was claimed by the Karaite Jews. It is believed that Rav Saadia formulated his unusual and limited view on the function of the psalms, in reaction to the Karaites, who had rejected the Rabbanite siddur and used the psalms as their prayer book instead.

In this article, however, based extensively on the work by Professor Uriel Simon[1], we explore another unusual view of the psalms. This is the view held by R. Moshe Ibn Gigatila, who believed that that the psalms are indeed prayers - but nothing more than prayers. And because they are just prayers, they are not profoundly holy nor do they carry any prophetic or spiritually subliminal innuendo.

342) HAYYUN’S HYPOTHESIS: DANCING BETWEEN THE LINES:

 

INTRODUCTION:

The Portuguese Torah commentator Rabbi Yitzchak Abravanel (1437-1508) was an interesting exegete who was not afraid to pose penetrating questions or even criticise earlier texts.

During the 1460s, Abravanel wrote to R. Yosef Hayyun (d. 1497), the rabbi of Lisbon and presented a challenging question to him:

“My question and request is whether this book of Deuteronomy was given by the Lord from heaven, and its contents are like the rest of the Torah that Moses placed before the Israelites and everything from ‘in the beginning’ through ‘in the sight of all Israel’ are the words of the living God; or whether Moses himself composed Deuteronomy in order to expound what he understood of the divine intent in the elucidation of the precepts?”^[1]

In other words, was Deuteronomy essentially the work of Moshe or was the authorship of purely Divine origin?

This article, based extensively on the research by Professor Eran Viezel[2], deals with some of the related issues that arise from this fascinating piece of rabbinic communication.

 

184) IBN EZRA’S ‘SECRET’ THAT IS ‘NOT FOR AVERAGE PEOPLE’:

INTRODUCTION:

[Leaving aside the views of some commentators concerning the authorship of the Book of Devarim - as per previous post - let us now turn our attention to R. Avraham Ibn Ezra (1089-1164):]

In Ibn Ezra’s Torah commentary he sometimes referred to a ‘secret’ which he did not wish to elaborate upon.

However, R. Yosef ben Eliezer Bonfils (14^th century) wrote a commentary on Ibn Ezra, entitled Tzafnat Pa’aneach and in it, he elucidates at length on what Ibn Ezra only hinted at:

It turns out that Ibn Ezra believed that a number of Torah passages were not actually written by Moshe, but were added in by later prophets!

Rabbi Dr Zev Farber points out six instances where the Tzafnat Pa’aneach indicates that Ibn Ezra believed this to be the case.[1]

THE CANAANITES WERE THEN IN THE LAND:

In one example, the Torah verse states:

  

“Abram passed through the land as far as the site of Shechem, up to the Plain of Moreh and the Canaanites were then in the land.”[2] 
  

Ibn Ezra then comments on this verse:

“It would seem that the Canaanites took the land of Canaan from a different group [during the time of Avraham] [3], but if this [interpretation] is not correct, then there is a secret here, and the wise will remain silent.”

Tzafnat Pa’aneach then explains:

The word ‘then’ (from; The Canaanites were then in the land) implies that at the time of the writing of this verse the Canaanites were no longer in control of the land as they were when Avraham passed through it.

But we know that the Canaanites were still in control of the land until just after the time of Moshe’s death, so had Moshe written that verse there would have been no need to mention who controlled the land as obviously it would have been the Canaanites:

“It makes no sense for Moses to write “then,” for reason dictates that the word “then” could only have been written at a time when the Canaanites were not occupying the land, and we know that the Canaanites were not removed from the land until after Moses’ death during the conquest of Joshua.

According to this, Moses did not write that word here, rather Joshua or one of the later prophets wrote it...

It would not be appropriate to reveal this secret to average people, lest they make light of the Torah...

Additionally, because of the nations, who tell us, “your Torah was once the truth, but you replaced it and changed it,” for these reasons he says, “the wise will be silent,” for the wise know that this does no damage, only the fools would attack him (Ibn Ezra) for this.”

Amazingly - according to Tzafnat Pa’aneach - Ibn Ezra believed that there was some degree of latitude for extra words to be added to the Torah after the time of Moshe. This broke with the perceived rule that every word of the Torah had to have come directly from G-d!

And the ‘secret’ was that some extra words were inserted into the Torah by either Joshua or a later prophet!

THE TEMPLE MOUNT:

Here is another example:

After the Akeida (where Avraham thought he had to offer his son as a sacrifice) the Torah says:

“And Avraham called the name of that place ‘Adon-ai Yireh’ [Hashem will appear], which is today known as ‘on the mountain of Adon-ai Yeiraeh [Hashen has appeared].’”[4]

Ibn Ezra comments:

“The reason of ‘on the mountain of Adon-ai Yeiraeh’ is explained in Devarim.”

At the beginning of Devarim[5], Ibn Ezra explained that the ‘Mountain of Hashem’ refers to the Har haMoriah upon which the Temple was later to be built.

Tzafnat Pa’aneach then writes:

 “Now Moses never wrote in the Torah which mountain [the Temple would be built on], he only wrote, “the place which the Lord will choose” (Deut. 12:11). This implies that Moses did not know which mountain it would be, since [God] did not reveal its name until the days of David. So how could [Moses] say here that “on the Mount of the Lord there is vision”, which implies that Moses knew [that this was the mountain.]”[6]

He continues writing that in later generations, when people were acquainted with the Temple in Jerusalem, it was clear which mountain the Temple was situated upon. However, this was some time after the Torah was written and it was impossible for people to have known this during the time of Moshe.

“Therefore, Moses could not have written this verse. Instead, the later prophets wrote it, as I explained on the verse, “the Canaanites were then in the land” in Parashat Lech Lecha (Gen. 12:6). Look there and you will understand this.”[7]

‘THESE ARE THE WORDS’:

A third example:

The opening words of Devarim begin with: “These are the words that Moses addressed to all Israel on the other side of the Jordan.”[8]

Ibn Ezra comments (paraphrase):

“... If you understand the secret of the twelve...as well as...“and the Canaanites were then in the land” (Gen. 12:6), [and] “on the mountain of Adon-ai Yeiraeh” (Gen. 22:14)... – you will recognize the truth.”

Tzafnat Pa’aneach explains:

“Know that the secret of the twelve refers to the final twelve verses[9] of the Torah. There [ibn Ezra] says that in his estimation, Joshua wrote the end of the Torah...”

If you understand the ‘secrets’ behind these verses (i.e.: The secrets of the twelve, the secrets of the Canaanites and the secrets of Adon-ai Yeiraeh) - that they were not written by Moshe – then you will also understand that the first five verses of Devarim, were not written by Moshe either.

These five verses are written in the third person as if narrated by someone other than Moshe. Although other parts of the Torah are also written in the third person, here place names are appended, and:  “If Moses had written it, he would not have needed to offer any allusions, since all of Israel had been there and knew these places.”

MOSE 'WROTE' AND 'GAVE': 

Furthermore, the Tzafnat Pa’aneach continues to state that later on in Devarim it is written: “Moshe wrote down the Torah and gave it to the Cohanim.”[10] 

From the expressions “wrote” and “gave”, which are written in the past tense it “is a proof that this verse was written into the Torah only after the events. Thus Moses did not write it but rather one of the later prophets must have written it.”

ESTABLISHING THE PARAMETERS OF ‘ADDING TO THE TORAH’:

All in all, Ibn Ezra suggested six instances where verses or paragraphs were, in his view, added at some later stage to the Torah. Of course, the question then arises as to what about the injunction against adding any superfluous words, or interfering in any way, with the Torah?

Tzafnat Pa’aneach answers this question in the following manner:

“[Ibn Ezra] says that the rule about adding [extra words to the Torah] only refers to mitzvot, meaning, the Torah is only warning us not to add to the number of commandments and their overall structure, but this has nothing to do with [adding] words [to the Torah]. Therefore, if a prophet were to add a word or two to explain something known from tradition, this is not an ‘addition.’...

And if you argue: Our Rabbis in Sanhedrin, Perek Chelek(99a) said that even if a person were to say that the entire Torah is from heaven except for one verse which the Holy One, blessed be He, did not write but rather Moses wrote down his own words – regarding him scripture states (Numbers 15:31): ‘He has insulted the word of the Lord,’ – this can be responded to, for this only refers to the commandments, as we stated above. It does not apply to the narrative...”

Tzafnat Pa’anech continues in a similar vein:

 “Now if someone were to argue, “But did Rabbi Abraham [ibn Ezra] himself hint towards the beginning of Deuteronomy (1:2) that later prophets added phrases, even verses into the Torah?!” 

The answer: Adding a phrase or a verse to explain that which Moses said, or to add a clarification is not the same as adding an entire parasha. A phrase or a verse is an explanation, but an entire parasha is an addition.”[11]

REACTION TO IBN EZRA:

As one can imagine, not all the commentators were impressed with Ibn Ezra’s radical interpretations.

Ramban, for example, in his commentary on the Song of Songs, writes that anyone who claims that Ezra the Scribe (one of the last of the prophets) added verses to the Torah[12], is considered be to a heretic.

Even though, as R. Chaim Dov Chavel points out, that commentary was not actually written by Ramban but rather by the earlier Kabbalist, R. Ezra of Gerona - still, it indicates a typically hostile attitude to these interpretations put forward by Ibn Ezra.

In short, it would be fair to say that Ibn Ezra’s view - that some sections of Torah were added by later prophets - is very much a minority position.[13] Yet these views still made their way into a position of prominence by being printed in standard editions of Mikraot Gedolot alongside all the classical commentators!

ANALYSIS:

Perhaps what is most fascinating is that Ibn Ezra was reluctant to openly expound upon his thesis - and that only two hundred years later, for some reason the Tzafnat Pa’aneach was quite prepared to speak about such matters (although with the proviso that this was not for ‘average people’).

Furthermore, the expression ‘Sod’ or ‘Secrets of the Torah’ is generally a synonym for lofty, mystical and Kabbalistic concepts. However, here, Ibn Ezra uses it in its literal context. In other words, his hypothesis was really meant to be kept a secret.

Could it be that Ibn Ezra believed that there were, in fact, two truths: one for ‘average believers’ and another for ‘the wise’?

---

[1] Seven Torah Passages of Non-Mosaic Origin According to Ibn Ezra and R. Joseph Bonfils, by Rabbi Dr Zev Farber.

[2] Bereishit 12:6.

[3] Parenthesis mine. The way I understand Ibn Ezra is that there are two ways to look at this verse:

·     Either it was written by Moshe, who informs us that the Canaanites had conquered the land from a previous nation and at the time of Avraham, they were already clearly in control of the land. (See the various opinions of Rashi on this verse and also on Bamidbar 13:22.)

·     Or it was added later by Joshua (or another prophet) who was writing at a time when the Canaanites had already been expelled from the land during Joshua’s conquest,  after Moshe’s death - and referred to the time of Abraham when they still controlled the land (and which they continued to do as long as Moshe was alive). In other words, Moshe couldn’t have said that the Canaanites were ‘then’ (during Avraham’s time) in control of the land – as they continued to remain in control all the time that Moshe was alive.

[4] Bereishit 22:14.

[5] Devarim 1:2.

[6] Translation of Tzafnat Pa’aneach by R. Dr Faber.

[7] Translation of Tzafnat Pa’aneach by R. Dr Faber.

[8] Deuteronomy 1:1.

[9] According to Makkot 11a, it was the last eight verses which were written by Joshua.

[10] Devarim 31:9.

[11] Tzafnat Pa’aneach on Bereishit 36: 31

[12] As in Bereishit 13:6, Devarim 3:11.

[13] For more informative speculation on Ramban’s position, see Ramban on Ibn Ezra’s Heresy, by Gil Student, May 31 20018.

158) IBN EZRA QUOTES KARAITE COMMENTATORS SEVERAL HUNDRED TIMES:

Sefer haGoralot, a treatise on astrology, by Ibn Ezra.

INTRODUCTION:

Avraham ben Meir Ibn Ezra (1089-1167) was born in Tudela, Spain. He travelled extensively throughout North Africa, Egypt, Italy, France and even spent some time in Oxford and London. It appears that he passed away in England (allegedly after being attacked by wolves) and it is even suggested that he may have been buried there. He was widely respected as a poet and scholar and is probably best known for his various Torah commentaries.

THE MOON CRATER:

Ibn Ezra’s acclaim was not only within Jewish circles. He even has the moon crater Abenezra named after him. This may have been because, in addition to his Biblical commentaries, he wrote a number of treatises on mathematics and numbers, in which he expounded on the old Indian system of mathematics, which later influenced the Arabic mathematicians. He also wrote about the ‘Galgal’ (the ‘circle’) otherwise known as the numeral zero, which he brought to the attention of some in Europe.[1]

(For more on Ibn Ezra see KOTZK BLOG 94.)

PSHAT – THE SIMPLE MEANING OF THE TORAH TEXT:

Ironically, it is the Master Commentator, Rashi, who is commonly known as the great expounder of the Pshat, or literal and simple meaning of the Torah text. Yet, even a cursory examination of Rashi, reveals that his commentary is not always Pshat. Rather it is replete with Medrashic sources and rabbinical allegories – which do not always adhere to the literal meaning of the text – and which instead often reveal a hidden meaning or a moral lesson.[2]

It is evident, however, that it was the purists from the Pshat School of biblical commentators, such as Ibn Ezra, who really expounded on the literal interpretation of the texts, without relying upon Medrashic allegory.

AN EXAMPLE OF ‘PSHAT’:

An example of this difference between Rashi and Ibn Ezra can be seen in their respective commentaries on Bereishit 14:14:

When Avraham learned that Lot had been taken captive, the Torah text says that he summoned 318 men[3] to save him.  Rashi, however, quoting the Rabbis, says it was not an army but just one man, namely, Eliezer his servant, whose name had the gematria or numerical value of 318:

Ibn Ezra, on the other hand, dismisses this ‘drash’ (allegorical interpretation) as it involves numerology. Numerology, he says, is no way to prove anything because it can be twisted and abused to create any outcome:

THE KARAITE INFLUENCE:

The Karaites were an influential, significant and large number of Jews who ignored the rabbinical interpretations of the Torah and relied solely upon the literal meaning of the text as they imagined the ancient Israelites to have done during biblical times. The movement may have had its roots going back to the second century BCE,[4] but they certainly crystallised under the leadership of Anan ben David (715-795 or 811).

They became so powerful that, at one time, with almost half of the Jewish population practising Karaism, it was thought to have been a strong contender for future Judaism. However, as we know, Rabbinical Judaism continued to remain the dominant mainstream.

(For more on the Karaites see KOTZK BLOG 63. and KOTZK BLOG 122.)

With the Karaite insistence on the pure and literal meaning of the Torah text, it is possible that Ibn Ezra, a ‘pshatist’, turned to some of their interpretations when he needed clarity on the Pshat.

In his book, Masters of the Word[5], R. Yonatan Koltach writes:

“In his Torah commentary, Ibn Ezra quotes Karaite commentators extensively...

While he cites some Karaite interpretations with agreement and respect, such as...Aharon ben Yeshua and...Yeshua ben Yehudah, his stance...was principally defiant and discrediting.”

Nevertheless:

“Ibn Ezra quotes Karaite commentators several hundred times in his Bible commentary.”[6]

“Indeed, he cites the Jerusalemite Karaite, Yeshua (ben Yehudah) at least forty times[7], seemingly in concurrence.

Moreover, Ibn Ezra quotes the Karaite, Yefet (ben Ali HaLevi...) more than one hundred times[8], often complementing his interpretations.”

By comparison, Philip Birnbaum writes that Ibn Ezra only quotes R. Saadia Gaon five times.[9]

OPPOSITION TO IBN EZRA:

These ideas did not sit well with other Torah scholars and thus we find that R. Shlomo Luria (1510-1573, also known as Maharshal) wrote:

“(Ibn Ezra) has lent support to heretics...and those of little faith.”[10]

R. Yosef Delmedigo (1591-1655, also known as the Yashar miKandiya) who spent much time amongst the Karaites, writes that the majority of Ibn Ezra’s commentary is taken from Karaite sources!

In a similar manner, Abarbanel (1437-1508) writes:

“(Ibn Ezra was) influenced by Karaite commentators and occasionally follows their opinions.”[11]

RAMBAM:

Rambam, on the other hand, had no issues with Ibn Ezra, and he also seems to have been well acquainted with the writings of Yefet ben Ali[12].

Quite to the contrary, Rambam praised Ibn Ezra as can be seen by what he wrote in the letter to his son:

‘Do not pay attention or divert your mind on commentaries, treatises and books other than those of Ibn Ezra, which alone are meaningful and profitable to all who study them with intelligence, understanding and deep insight’.[13]

WHO WAS THE KARAITE ‘YEFET BEN ALI’?

Ibn Ezra, as mentioned, quotes the Karaite Yefet ben Ali over one hundred times.

Yefet ben Ali haLevi was born in the early 900’s in Basra (present-day Iraq) and died in Jerusalem around 980. He was known by the Karaites as the Maskil haGolah (Intellect of the Exile).

He wrote about his dispute with Rav Saadia Gaon (882-942) and tried to prove the superiority of the Karaite view. Besides attacking the Rabbinites, as the mainstream Jews were called, he severely criticised Christianity as well as Islam.

From his commentary on Isaiah it is clear that in his view there are four categories of Jews:

1)      The Reish Galuta (Exilarchs) who pretend to have knowledge.

2)      The scholars to whom the Reish Galuta teaches the ‘nonsense’ of Talmud as well as sorcery.

3)      The common folk who do not study and only know about attending synagogue from Shabbat to Shabbat and to say ‘Shema’ and answer Amen.

4)      The ‘real’ Karaite Maskilm (Scholars) who truly understand Torah and teach generously without demanding payment for their services.

In another work[14] he argued that, in his view, there is no evidence of an Oral Tradition within the Written Torah, and purported that the Mishna and Talmud infringe on the Biblical prohibition of Lo Tosifu - “Do not add to the word I have commanded you.”[15]

Yefet ben Ali also broke with the general Karaite view that the study of secular science was to be discouraged. On the contrary, he insisted that it be studied as a pre-cursor to religious theology.

Besides the two exceptions of the Biblical stories of the Burning Bush and the Song of Songs, no other parts of the Torah were to be interpreted allegorically.

Amazingly, this was the man Ibn Ezra was prepared to quote from more than a hundred times!

According to E.Z. Melamed, the Karaites went so far as to claim that Yefet ben Ali was indeed Ibn Ezra’s teacher![16]

ARTSCROLL QUOTING KARAITES?

According to Professor Marc Shapiro:

“...Ibn Ezra has no reticence in citing Karaite interpreters, yet as we know, ArtScroll only cites ‘accepted’ authorities, and won’t even mention the Soncino commentary by name...(However) there are some times when ArtScroll errs in this matter.

For example, in its commentary to Jonah, p. 111 it cites ‘Yefes ben Ali’ (who is quoted by Ibn Ezra). Presumably, the ArtScroll editor assumed that he was a rishon.

In truth, he was a Karaite, and his inclusion in the Jonah commentary is diametrically opposed to the standard set up by ArtScroll with regard to which commentaries they will cite, a standard that opposes the Ibn Ezra-Maimonides approach (adopted by Soncino) of ‘accept the truth from whomever said it’”.[17]

ANALYSIS:

To be clear, Ibn Ezra was a fervent Rabbinite and opposed the non-Halachic practices of the Karaites. However, this did not prevent him from making use of Karaite interpretations when it came to the actual literal meaning of some of the words of the Torah text.

The same debate over the permissibility of using ‘extraneous’ or ’outside’ source to enhance Torah knowledge still rages today. Can one, for example, use academic writings or research done by non-religious people, to compliment one’s Torah study?

The answer to that question would fundamentally lie in the view one adopts regarding the precedent set by people like Ibn Ezra.

(For an even more extreme example of ‘Karaite precedent’ in the Mesora, see KOTZK BLOG 122.)

---

[1] See (Article): A History of Zero, Ancient Indian Mathematics, by J J O’Connor and E f Robertson.

[2] Yet Rashi said of himself that he only came to expound on the Pshat.

[3] Or ‘desciples’.

[4] This is the view of R. Yehudah haLevi, who was Ibn Ezra’s friend, or possibly even his father-in-law. See Sefer haKuzari, by R. Yehuda haLevi, where the roots of Karaism are traced back to the reign of King Jannai.

[5] Vol 2, p. 280 and 309.

[6] (Emphasis mine.) Although in his introduction, Ibn Ezra does state that Karaite commentaries are unreliable.

[7] See Ibn Ezra’s commentary on Bereshit 28:12 and Shemot 7:12, 17:16.

[8] See Ibn Ezra’s commentary on Shemot 3:3, 12:16, 22:27.

[9] In the Minor Prophets alone, Ibn Ezra quotes Yefet ben Ali forty-four and Ran Saadia Gaon only five times. See: Yefet ben 'Ali and His Influence on Biblical Exegesis, by Philip Birnbaum, The Jewish Quarterly Review, New Series, Vol. 32, No. 3 (Jan.1942), pp. 257-271.

[10] See Introduction to Chullin and Introduction to Bava Kamma.

[11] See Abarbanel on Vayikra 19:20, Bamidbar 21:1.

[12] See: From Judah Hadassi to Elijah Bashyatchi, by Daniel  J. Lasker, p. 128

[13] See: Letters of Maimonides, Stitskin,  p156. It must be pointed out, though, that Rambam did not agree with all the writings of Ibn Ezra, particularly those which dealt with astrology (such as Sefer haGoralot which is pictured above).

[14] This was an epistle published by Pinsker under the title Likkutei Kadmoniyot, p. 19.

[15] Devarim 4:2.

[16] E Z Melamed (1975) pp. 676-679. (According to Marc Shapiro, this is a ‘false legend’.)

[17] See The Seforim blog:  More about Rashbam on Genesis Chapter 1 and Further Comments about ArtScroll, by Marc B. Shapiro.