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.

075) WHY WAS RASHBAM SO RUTHLESSLY ATTACKED AND CENSORED?

INTRODUCTION:

Not too much is known about Rashi’s grandson, Rabbi Shmuel ben Meir or Rashbam, brother of Rabbenu Tam. He lived in northern France, but the dates of his birth and passing are not clear, although they are believed to be from around 1080 to 1160.

THE PSHAT MOVEMENT:

During this time there was great trend amongst the commentators to expound the pshat, or simple, literal and contextual meaning of the Torah text. In a strange irony, his grandfather Rashi claimed to have only commented according to the pshat[1] or simple meaning of the Torah, yet most of his commentary is taken from midrashim (earlier texts which go far beyond the literal interpretation, often offering detailed explanations for gaps in the Torah narrative).
It was his grandson, Rashbam, however who really did stick faithfully to the simple literal text (to his own detriment, as we shall see), and Rashi is said to have acknowledged the fact that Rashbam was the pure pshatist.

RASHBAM’ S MANUSCRIPTS:

It’s also interesting to note that Rashi’s commentaries were always popular and abundant, with literally hundreds of his early manuscripts surviving to this day. This was not the case with Rashbam, as only one manuscript of his Torah commentaries survived until it disappeared during the Holocaust. And even that manuscript had sections missing. Fortunately, in 1705 the manuscript was published in print form[2]. This means that there could not have been much serious study of Rasbam’s Torah commentaries before the 1700’s.

RASHBAM’S TORAH COMMENTARY VS TALMUDIC COMMENTARY:

Another irony is that Rashbam (besides his interest in pshat), was also a founder of the analytical school of Talmudic study known as Ba’alei Tasafot[3]. In his Talmudic commentary he is known to have adhered exactingly to Talmudic thought[4] and conventional halachic practices - which was not always the case when he commented on the pshat of Torah.

It’s almost as if he meant his Torah commentary to be taken academically while his Talmudic commentaries were to be taken halachically and pragmatically. In his Torah commentary he was prepared to explain, theoretically and academically, some things that were at variance to accepted halachik practices (although he never ever advocated any practical departure from standard halacha).[5]

It is with regard to some of his Torah commentary, that much controversy abounds, and it is there that he is considered by some to be a radical commentator.[6]

SETTING THE STAGE FOR THE SHOWDOWN:

One of the key points of contention between the members of the Pshat movement themselves,was how to interpret a verse of the Torah if the contextual meaning differed from accepted halachic practice.

Ibn Ezra (1089-1167) believed that halacha always trumped pshat, so that in cases where the contextual meaning contradicts the accepted halachic practice, one would always choose the halachic interpretation over the contextual meaning.[7]

Rashbam, on the other hand, being a purist, believed that under the same circumstances, when studying pshat, one would always adhere to the contextual meaning instead of ignoring it for the halachic interpretation.[8]  Rashbam explained this clearly when he said; ‘I have not come to expound the halachot, even though they are vital. The halachot can be learned from my grandfather’s (i.e. Rashi’s) commentaries, but I have come only to explain the literal and contextual meaning of the verses.’
Then, in the same paragraph, he again emphasizes that on a practical level halacha is never to be dismissed. It’s just that he makes the stark distinction between the theoretical study of pshat and the practical religious requirement of halachic observance.[9]

THE CONTROVERSY:

We don’t have to wait long for one of the greatest controversies to play out.  Commenting on verse 5 of Genesis, Rashbam drops a halachik bombshell. Everyone knows that the Jewish day begins in the evening and ends the following evening. But Rashbam points out that while that may be the case, we need to understand that the accepted convention is not in accordance with the pshat of the Torah.

He explains: “And it was evening and it was morning” – it’s not written ‘night and morning’, but ‘evening and morning’, implying that as the first day unfolded, the ‘light’ set and then turned into evening which then transitioned into morning. It was only after morning arrived that the Torah declared ‘one day’. Thus a biblical day was morning to morning.[10]

Rashbam’s definition of a biblical day, according to his understanding of the contextual pshat, is morning to morning, as opposed to the halachic definition of evening to evening!

IBN EZRA’S ‘SHABBOS LETTER’:

When Ibn Ezra got wind of this interpretation, we witness one of the most aggressive reactions ever to take place within the world of Torah commentary.

It appears as though one particular Friday, a manuscript of Rashbam’s Torah commentary innocently arrived in England, where Ibn Ezra was living at that time.[11]

Ibn Ezra tells the rest of the story himself (paraphrase):

“One Shabbat[12], I, Avraham the Sephardi, also known as Ibn Ezra, was on the island known as the Edge of the World. In the middle of the night, I had a dream in which a man handed me a letter from Shabbat herself. Initially I was so excited and honoured that Shabbat had sent me a letter until I got to the end, when my heart dropped. I couldn’t understand why Shabbat was so upset with me as I had always cherished her with all my soul.

The letter read:

‘I am Shabbat. The forth of the Ten Commandments, the day on which the manna did not fall, the day which brings joy and calmness to all, the day when mourners do not mourn  and the dead are not eulogized, when even animals rest, and when wisdom is to be found a hundredfold compared to weekdays. I have always protected you and you have guarded me.

But now a mistake has been made. And you have a book in your house which will cause people to desecrate the seventh day. How can you remain silent and not protest?’

In the dream, the messenger told me that my students had brought me a book the previous day in which it is written to desecrate Shabbat. He told me to fight at all costs against the enemies of Shabbat.

I awoke trembling and angry. I washed my hands and found the (Rashbam’s) book and took it to the moonlight, where I read that the definition of a day was morning to morning! I wanted to tear my clothes as well as the page out of the book, but I did not want to desecrate Shabbat. I made a vow that I would not sleep the next night until I had written a letter explaining the true interpretation that ‘day’ is measured evening to evening.

This (Rashbam’s) interpretation is causing all Israel to go astray. Anyone who reads it out loud or believes it - may their tongue stick to their palate. Any scribe who writes it - may their hand dry up and be blinded – while all the rest of Israel will have light!” [13]

ANALYSIS:

Although Rashbam made it quite clear, as we mentioned above, that he always upheld practical halacha - he nevertheless believed there was a place for theoretical and contextual interpretation of Torah verses even when they were in opposition to halacha (as long as inferences were not made that laws could be changed). This ‘disclaimer’ was not enough for Ibn Ezra, hence his violent attack against Rashbam.

One wonders if Rashbam’s duel ‘academic\halachik approach’ was not one of the reasons why his Torah commentaries were so rare in the centuries which followed, and why only one partial manuscript survived till 1945.

This may also be the reason why some modern editions of Mikraot Gedolot, a compendium of various Torah commentators, chose to either leave out Rashbam entirely, or censor out some of his controversial sections such as the example we cited.[14]

SUPPORT FOR RASHBAM’S VIEW:

The interesting fact, though, is that one can make a very strong argument is support of Rashbam’s position.  No less an authority than Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the redactor of the Mishna, a thousand years before Rashbam, held a similar view that according to the contextual pshat of the verses, a biblical day may indeed have been morning to morning.[15]

Also Rashi comments that; ‘the sun rules for half a day followed by the moon for the other half, making one complete day’.[16]

It seems as if Rav Saadiah, according to pshat, held this view as well.[17] So did Rabbi Reuven Margaliot.

Rabbi Ovadiah Yoseph cites many sources explaining that the day was measured from morning to morning until the Torah was given at Sinai, when it was changed by convention to evening to evening.

None of these views suggest any practical deviation whatsoever from the parameters of the halachik day, and no one seems to have been upset with them for their theoretical reading of pshat.

Yet Ibn Ezra, as we pointed out, believed that pshat must never be allowed to contradict halacha, hence his strenuous opposition to Rashbam.

Furthermore, historically, there were sectarian Jews who did depart from traditional convention and did indeed begin observing Shabbat from Saturday morning to Sunday morning.[18] This too must also have sparked his opposition and may have been the cause for his ‘targeted attack’ against Rashbam.

AFTERTHOUGHT:

I have another theory as to why there may have been such remarkable antagonism towards Rashbam in particular. In the same section of commentary that we have been dealing with, there is yet another theological bombshell that may have been overlooked by many.

Rashbam comments; “In the beginning G-d created – this means that at the beginning of creating heaven and earth, at the time that the supernal heaven and earth were already created – whether that lasted a long time or a short time, the earth was void and without form.”

Never mind the controversy over the pshat as to when the day begins, but there may additionally be the other thorny issue of some aspect of creation lasting ‘a long time or a short time’...

--------------------------------

UPDATE:

I am so happy to be able to offer additional insight by my dear friend and respected Rosh Yeshivah, Rabbi Chaim Finkelstein:

The time period of the Rishonim can really be called the best of times and the worst of times. The best of times in the proliferation of creative thinking and writing, both in halacha and theology and yet the worst of times in that the self same creativity came under great scrutiny and criticism from the major Rishonim, who berated those views deemed questionable and did so in the most vitriolic way. The question begs, why is it that sages of great mental ability, minds immeasurably superior to ours, could not cope with the novel approaches and could not see the rationale in the same way we can analyse these opinions today and find favour with them?

The answer perhaps presents itself when we appreciate the full import of what the Rishonim were doing in those days. At that point in time the Talmud was basically a closed book, the language, the style of dialectic, the simple meaning, was all impossible to understand without user friendly aids. The Rishonim were deciphering and creating a standard interpretation of the Talmud for posterity and setting down the principles upon which the halacha would rest. In other words the Rishonim were the keepers and the preservers of the oral Torah, a Torah which was not accessible in its current state.

Understanding the need for exactness in such a critical project, and that creativity could cost the integrity of the transmission of the oral Torah, it stands to reason why purists had to defend the Torah with severe outcries against any perceived distortion, because one wrong thought would translate into generations of wrong lore and practice. An extreme example was cited in Rabbi Michal's blogabout the community of Crete who observed Shabbos from Saturday morning to Sunday morning, an error of epic proportions which could have started with a creative twist of an interpretation.

In our times when the guidelines are set and the Shulchan Aruch forms the basis of expository halacha, we can consider novel ideas with more open mindedness, and even try to resolve them, as these ideas don't threaten the basis of our Mitzva performance, like in the times of the Rishonim, only our paradigms and comfort zones.

....................

The Gemara in Hullin 83a and 83b discusses the prohibition of slaughtering the mother and calf on the same day. Rabbi Shimon held that the day means first night then day and derived it from "yom echad" to follow creation. Rebbi derived something else from "yom echad", not that day follows night. Interesting that Rebbi is Rabbi Yehudah who could hold that "yom echad" in Breishis does not mean that after night and day "yom echad", but that after erev and bokker the day finishes and "yom echad" means something else... 

   

---

[1] Or, as Rashi called it; ‘peshuto shel mikrah’. This trend towards the pshat (the plain meaning of the Torah text) became so widespread, that a movement was started that become known as the Pshat movement. See Masters of the Word, by Rabbi Yonatan Koltach, p. 91.

[2] Interestingly, other parts of the missing manuscript were discovered in 1853 by a German Reform rabbi, Abraham Geiger, who published it and made it available to the Jewish world. Then in 1881, David Rosin reconstructed other missing sections and published an almost complete edition (with only parshat Pinchas missing). This edition then became the basis for its inclusion in the well known Mikraot Gedolot series (such as the Shulsinger edition of 1950, and HaMaor of 1986).

[3] Rashbam and the Baalei Tosafot generally did not quote mystical sources. (But see Masters of the Word, ibid. where a different view is cited, p.94 note 5.)

[4] He wrote commentaries to two Talmudic tractates (which were actually a completion of Rashi’s commentaries to those same tractates), namely Bava Batra and Pesachim.

[5] See Rashbam – A Short Bio, by Rabbi Martin Lockshin, Ph.D.

[6] Although he generally stayed on the straight and narrow in his Talmudic commentaries, there is an instance where he denounced a ‘problematic section of the Talmud as “a later insertion of a long commentary by fools” (Bava Batra 137b). Rabbenu Tam criticized his brother for this unorthodox approach.’ (Masters of the Word ibid. P. 92.)

It should also be added that the other time his brother (Rabbenu Tam) complained about him was when he emended ‘the text of the Talmud “twenty times as often” as their grandfather did and that he used to write his emendations in the text of the Talmud itself, not in the margins, as Rashi did.’ (See Rabhbam – A Short Bio ibid.)

[7] See Ibn Ezra’s introduction to his Torah Commentary.

[8] See Rashbam’s introduction to Parshat Mishpatim.

[9] Another irony is that Ibn Ezra, although championing the halachic component over pshat, was never regarded as a great halachist by his contemporaries, nor is he generally quoted in reference to any authoritative halachic ruling. Some even spoke disparagingly about his halachic acumen. Rashbam, however, was often quoted as an authoritative halachik opinion.

[10] See Rashbam commentary to Genesis 1:5 ‘she’alah amud hashachar – harei hushlam yom echad.’

[11] According to many, Ibn Ezra passed away in England as well.

[12] 14 Tevet 4919. (1158)

[13] See Introduction to Ibn Ezra’s Igeret HaShabbat.

[14] Rabbi Professor Marc Shapiro in his Seforim Blog has famously brought to our attention how ArtScroll censored out these sections of Rashbam in their edition of Mikraot Gedolot, without any indication or notification that sections had been removed. The most complete version of Rashbam’s commentary can be found, however, in the Torat Chaim edition.

[15] See Emor VeAmarta, by Rabbi Eliyahu Katz, as cited by Marc Shapiro.

[16] Rashi on Bereishit 1:14

[17] See Perushei Rabbenu Saadia Gaon al HaTorah, p. 71, as cited by Marc Shapiro.

[18] According to Marc Shapiro who cites Binyamin of Tudela, these may have been the Mishawites of Cyprus.