Abstract
As a tribute of admiration to one who has studied medieval Jewish exegesis in depth, I would like to present here some reflections on a methodological aspect of the hermeneutics of Abraham ibn Ezra taken from his grammatical works. When examining the exegesis of Ibn Ezra it is common to underline his search for logic and rationality, his critical, philological attitude.1 However, one of the basic principles that Abraham ibn Ezra keeps in mind is the importance of respecting the traditional meaning of a passage even as we look for a rational explanation that is in consonance with its philological structure. To make his methodological attitude clear I shall comment on a passage that is found at the beginning of the first book that he dedicated to Hebrew grammar, the Moznayim,2 and that reappears at the end of his more mature philological work, the Sefer sabot.3 These grammatical works, written in the 1140s, at the same time that he wrote several of his most notable biblical commentaries, deal with many exegetical questions and are thought of as a solid foundation for the interpretation of the Bible. In the passages discussed below we can observe how an exegete who has been accused many times of being excessively rationalistic shows a deep respect for the Jewish tradition. This attitude leads him to disagree with two significant medieval scholars that are considered in his other works with particular deference: Saadia and Moses ibn Chiquitilla.4
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Footnotes
U. Simon, ‘Abraham ibn Ezra’, in M. Sæbø, ed., Hebrew Bible / Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation vol I: From the Beginnings to the Middle Ages (Until 1300). Part 2 The Middle Ages (Göttingen 2000) 379. Cf. also his ‘The Spanish School of Biblical Interpretation’, in H. Beinart, ed., Moreset Sefarad, The Sephardi Legacy vol. I (Jerusalem 1992) 128f.
Moznayim 13*-16*, (from now on Moz) according to the pages of the new edition of this work prepared by L. Jiménez Patón and A. Sáenz-Badillos (Cordoba 2002). Other grammatical works of Ibn Ezra are quoted according to following editions: Sefat yeter (Sy), according to the numbers of the Replies in the MA dissertation by I. Oshri, The Book of Defense on Rabbi Saadya Gaon (Commonly called’ sefat-Yeter’) (Bar-Ilan University 1988); Sefer sahot (Ss), according to the sections of the edition of C. del Valle, Sefer Sahot de Abraham ibn Ezra. I Edición crítica y versión castellana (Salamanca 1977); Yesod diqduq (Yd), according to the edition of N. Allony, Yesod diqduq hu’ Sefat Yeter (Jerusalem 1984), with reference to the pages of the manuscript just as they are indicated in the edition; Safah berurah (Sb), according to the pages of the PhD dissertation of E. Ruiz González, El Safah berurah de Abraham ibn Ezra. Universidad Complutense (Madrid 1994).
Ss 73.
See my article ‘A1 kama’ emdot diqduqiyot shel Abraham ibn Ezra’, Mebqare lashon 8 (2001) 229–251.
See the excellent presentation of the functions of the Hebrew accents by I. Yeivin, Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah (Missoula, Mo 1980) 157f.
About the fidelity of Abraham ibn Ezra to the tradition see Simon, ‘The Spanish School’, 128f.
For similar expressions of support to Saadia, cf. Sy 30, 33, 169.
For example, referring to the received vocalization of the masoretes in the case of Yerusalaim (Ss 12), or the regulation of the waw-sureq, received from ‘our parents’ (Ss 5). The masoretes themselves had a received tradition and the possibility of applying the reasoning or deduction (sevarah) to it, as when they suggest that in we-hinnehu (Jer. 18:3) an alef is lacking, as it is indicated in the qere (Ss 21).
This does not mean one should blindly follow: ‘This is the opinion of the old ones, but in my opinion… although by deduction…’ (Sb 63). Sometimes the ‘deduction’ and the data found in the biblical text can be in disagreement (Sb 74). Ruiz has studied this in his PhD dissertation, 148f., underlining the change of opinion that took place in Ibn Ezra’s works with the years.
As in the case of the open vocalization of the guttural letters (Ss 12).
I.e. the form and names of the vowels (Ss I ), or the meaning of the form and the name of the consonants (Ss 17, 18). Some times al derekh sevarah can refer to the formation of derived names, such as certain patronymic names (Ss 41); or to the suffixes of the geminated verbs (Ss 48; Yd 70a), or of other forms with suffixes that are not documented in the Scripture (Ss 43, 49); to the formation of the feminine plural ahadot instead of ahatot (Ss 42). Taking a form used in the Bible, as the first person of hof c al future uval (Job 10:19) all the rest can be completed by way of analogical deduction (Ss 65). This attitude can have curious consequences, as when he tries to interpret the numeral shemoneh, ‘eight’, from sbamen, ‘thick’ (Ss 42).
Discussing what is allowed in the Hebrew language, the norm is: ‘he will have to prove that this form is found in Scripture’ (Sy 31). The verb ‘to find’ plays a fundamental role, since it is the definitive test of the rightness of a grammatical analysis; the expression lo’ nitnsa’ re’ayah (Sb 39 s.) can also be used in this context. Analyzing a form like rodem, he observes: ‘Hebrews may have changed the norm in the verbs in which lamed can disappear ‘(Sy 55).
He refers to Saadia, although he does not expressly mention him, maybe in order not to underline his differences of opinion with the great teacher. He is more explixcit in other passages, such as Sy 169, where he tries to defend Saadia saying that in this topic he leaned on old teachers, even if he maintains that these passages, although they seem to need each other for their correct interpretation, do not depend at all on eachother. Here the author of the Critics against Sac adyah had criticized the Gaon (TDS 177) for having abandoned the traditional Jewish interpretation that respects the marks of the accents inside the biblical text. The author of the Critics and Abraham ibn Ezra coincide in defending, at least in the most significant passage, the value of the traditional Jewish exegesis. Cf. U. Simon in his edition of the ‘Comment. Hos. 12:12’, in Shene Perushe R. Abraham ibn Ezra li-Tere Asar (Jerusalem 1989) 119.
Both of them interpret the most difficult case (according to Ibn Ezra himself), 2 Chron. 30:18, uniting it to the following verse, following Saadia and in clear disagreement with Abraham ibn Ezra, as we will see later on.
The passages that he analyzes in this passage of the Moz and in the corresponding one of Ss are: Hos. 12:11, Hos. 4:10, Gen. 31:28, 2 Chron. 30:18 (paying special attention to it), Job 36:31, Ex. 34:6 and Gen. 21:33; he also includes in Moz Jer. 17:11 and Jud. 14:15, and in Ss, Hab. 3:2. The old Greek and Latin versions of the Bible preserve in most cases the same division of the Hebrew text, except in the case of 2 Chron. 30:18.
Hos. 12:11 is usually translated ‘And through the prophets I will bring destruction’. The following verse begins with a conditional particle (‘If in Gilead there is iniquity’) that for Saadia is the first part of a conditional sentence, on which the previous verse depends. For Ibn Ezra the conditional particle is the beginning of a new sentence, separating the meaning of both verses.
Some old translations seem to have understood already these two verses (Hos. 4:10 and 11) as a single unit. See the comment of Simon to this passage in his edition of the ‘Comment. Hos. 4:10’, 55, mentioning the opinion of Saadia, and adding some quotations of Ss in a similar direction.
Although the verse can be understood as separated from the following one (‘have you invited us here to impoverish us or not? Samson’s wife wept…’), some prefer to connect the end of v. I0 to the beginning of v. II: ‘or did Samson’s wife weep…?’ See on this passage D. Barthélemy e.a., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, I Josué, Juges, Ruth, Samuel, Rois, Chroniques, Esdras, Néhémie, Esther (Fribourg/ Göttingen 1982) 108f.
‘What you have done is foolish’, the final words of v. 28, could in principle be read together with the beginning of the following verse: ‘being in my power to do you harm…’, but the traditional accentuation of the passage and many translators that follow it, separate both verses. In his Comment. Gen, s.l. Ibn Ezra explains the infinitive is in construct state and that a particle like zeh or ken is lacking.
From early times most translators and exegetes (‘All the commentators’, Ibn Ezra points out in Ss 73; including the Septuagint, we can add) have understood this passage without division of verses. Although the accents of the text clearly mark that they should be understood as separate, in the hermeneutic rules of R. Eliezer ben Jose ha-Gelili this passage is explicitly included (with Job 17:4) as example of rule II: siddur she-nehelaq, specifying that the correct reading of the text would be taking the two verses as one, ‘but the sequence is divided’. A general norm is formulated: ‘when is it considered that an inter-ruption has taken place in the sequence? When the topic demands it.’ See A. Navarro, ‘Las Treinta y Tres reglas de interpretación segun el texto de la Misna de Rabbi Fliezer’, Miscelánea de Estudios Árabes y Hebraicos 36:2 (1987) 62. Ibn Ezra moves away from the usual interpretation respecting even in this case the traditional accentuation, in spite of the difficulty of finding the particle be-‘ad at the end of the first verse, without being followed by a noun; he solves the problem, the same as in many other cases, appealing to the ellipsis. Rashi (s.l.) understands the end of the verse united to the beginning of the following verse, leaning on in the exegetic rules of Eliezer ha-Gelili. RaDaK (s.l.) also connects it to the following verse, mentioning the opinion of Abraham ibn Ezra as a different one.
In his Comment. Psalm 73:15, he also alludes to this case as an elliptic text that should be completed with ‘those that ate the passover’.
According to Ibn Ezra in Ss 73b, Moses ibn Chiquitilla interpreted Job 36:31 connecting it to the following verse: ‘he gives food in abundance (or to whom who has many [children]) with both hands.…’ See S. Poznanski, Mose B. Samuel Hakkohen ibn Chiquitilla nebst den Fragmenten seiner Schriften (Leipzig 1895) 117, 182. Ibn Ezra respects the separating accent and divides the sense, uniting ‘with both hands’ to the words that follow (‘he covers with the lightning…’).
Probably Saadia, as Ibn Ezra expressly says in his two commentaries, the short and the long one, to Ex. 34:6.
The usual denomination of this accent is merekha, a conjunctive accent that indicates that the marked word and the following one go together. In the case of Ex. 34:6, on the other hand, wa-yiqra’ has a segolta, a separating or disjunctive accent, which indicates that the following word (the first mention of the divine name) does not go together with the verb.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2003 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sáenz-Badillos, A. (2003). Abraham ibn Ezra: Between Tradition and Philology. In: Berger, S., Brocke, M., Zwiep, I., Fontaine, R., Munk, R. (eds) Zutot 2002. Zutot: Perspectives on Jewish Culture, vol 2. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0199-1_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0199-1_10
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-010-3980-2
Online ISBN: 978-94-010-0199-1
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive