tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21083596.post114429145586178420..comments2023-07-01T06:21:23.426-04:00Comments on Torah, Science, Et Al.: Ibn Ezra on Torah AuthorshipUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21083596.post-1157353721424076162006-09-04T03:08:00.000-04:002006-09-04T03:08:00.000-04:00On principal, I do not correspond with people who ...On principal, I do not correspond with people who transliterate the letter ches/chet/het/heth/ח as x.<BR/><BR/>That aside, I'm surprised at category 1. IE is far from the only rishon to say that; I think it is even found in the geonim.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21083596.post-1157313190807916532006-09-03T15:53:00.000-04:002006-09-03T15:53:00.000-04:00Regarding manuscripts: I sent the following to an ...Regarding manuscripts: I sent the following to an expert on these matters: <BR/><BR/><I>Regarding the Ibn Ezra: the commenter is apparently quoting the Chida who was in turn quoting someone who believed he had evidence that parts of the Ibn Ezra text were later additions. Any idea what that purported evidence was? Is there any such evidence known today? Is there any evidence to the contrary (i.e., any positive indication that the comments were indeed written by Ibn Ezra - aside from the obvious fact that they appear in the middle of his commentary? Perhaps a stylistic correspondance, or textual consistency across manuscripts from different parts of the world, etc. etc)?</I><BR/><BR/>I received the following answer:<BR/><BR/>i don't think that there is any evidence of this assertion. in fact, whatever tampering would have occurred would have had to occur before the Tzafenat Pa'aneax wrote his commentary in the 14th century (and the same comments are made in a commentary on IE attributed to R. Yosef Caspi). so they are from the period of the rishonim for sure. the editions of ibn ezra with which i am familiar - mexoqeqei yehudah, torat hayyim - do not indicate that these passages do not appear in the MSS. [manuscripts]<BR/><BR/>i found that xerox of a page of a journal Tzefunot (vol. 3, p.86 - i only copied the last page, but the whole article deals with this question) the xaredi author accepts R. Kasher's view of interpolations in IE, and then summarizes as follows the ways that the odd views in IE and those opposed to Hazal can be explained:<BR/>1. in derash one can explain against hazal (havvot ya'ir, yafeh lalev, iggerot moshe, qol mevasser)<BR/>2. some kvetched everything he said to agree with hazal (tumim, divrei shaul, shu"t tzelax beshem yad elazar, she'erit ya'akov, xakmei verabbanei italia)<BR/>3. some say these things are from talmid to'eh (hakmei italia beshem r'h qazis [unknown to me], chida, yafeh lalev)<BR/>he says that all three are correct, because even if you use the first two, there remain some that are completely against torah shebeal peh.<BR/>so this is an old story, but the fact is that IE wrote what he wrote.DEShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02795113792190583167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21083596.post-1157312539348679132006-09-03T15:42:00.000-04:002006-09-03T15:42:00.000-04:00If the Ramban gives in effect a Kelallah to Ibn Ez...<I>If the Ramban gives in effect a Kelallah to Ibn Ezrah for disagreeing with the gemarah over Yocheved's age, why should he suddenly feel that Ibn Ezrah is right to disagree with the Gemarah in Sanhedrin over the principle of Mosaic Authorship of the whole Torah. ?</I><BR/><BR/>Ramban may not object in principle to arguing with the Gemara (after all, he does it himself, as noted above). He might understandably object, however, to Ibn Ezra's <I>gratuitously</I> disagreeing with the Gemara - i.e., his doing so without sufficient justification. So, for example, at Genesis 46:15, where Ramban chastises Ibn Ezra about the Yocheved business, he does not merely criticise Ibn Ezra for arguing with a Gemara. He demonstrates that Ibn Ezra's own explanation is as fraught with difficulties as the Gemara's. Ibn Ezra therefore gains nothing by arguing with the Gemara, and therefore can rightfully be criticised for rejecting the Gemara's statement without cause.<BR/><BR/>If, however, Ibn Ezra has a good reason to disagree with the Gemara - as Ramban may feel he does regarding the authorship of the verses in question - Ramban may not feel entitled to criticise him, <I>even if he personally disagrees with him</I>.<BR/><BR/><I>As for your view that the Ramban sometimes argues with the Gemarah, If you mean the Ramban in Tazriah. 111-A-2. You may believe you have a contradiction in Ramban but it is simpler to say that the Ramban makes a difference between believing a statement of the Gemarah was based on Greek science, leaving the Ramban an opening to possibly disagree, and where the Gemarah is discussing inyonim of Torah where one cannot.</I><BR/><BR/>That sounds reasonable. But just as the Talmud accepted much Greek science, which Ramban did not feel obliged to accept, the Talmud may also have accepted some historical assertions - such as the Mosaic authorship of certain verses - which Ramban did not feel obliged to accept. The question of Biblical authorship is a question of history, not primarily one of Torah (though it may or may not have halachic ramifications, just like science). Moses either wrote Deuteronomy 34:1, or he didn't. The principle of "Lo bashamayim hi" does not apply. Ramban may well feel that post-Talmudic scholars have the right to express their belief that the Talmud was misinformed or otherwise mistaken about a historical fact.<BR/><BR/><I>The supposed Ibn Ezra comments on Genesis 12:6 for example, would be heresy according to the Rambam. ... So again if the Ramban protests the Ibn Ezrah for disagreeing with the Gemarah on Torah matters, which is not one of the 13 Ikrim, he would have far more reason to protest against the supposed Ibn Ezra comments on Genesis 12:6 which is one of the 13 Ikrim.</I><BR/><BR/>1. See above: It is not clear that Ramban opposes disagreeing with the Gemara on Torah matters. He may only oppose doing so without cause.<BR/><BR/>2. Can you provide any evidence that Ramban accepted the 13 Ikkarim? Many Rishonim did not. Not only were they not a standard part of Jewish doctrine in Ramban's day; many Rishonim in his day were accusing Rambam of writing heresy!<BR/><BR/>3. Either Rambam's statement about Mosaic authorship is not as all-encompassing as it sounds, or he considered heretical the Tannaic opinion that the last 8 verses of the Torah were not written by Moses. While the latter approach is possible, I would consider it equally plausible to understand Rambam as ascribing Mosaic authorship to all of the Chumash <I>except where it doesn't make sense</I>. His words would then label as heresy neither the view of Rabbi Yehudah (or Nechemiah) on Bava Batra 15a, nor that of the Ibn Ezra - with whom he might still have disagreed (if he even knew what he had written).<BR/><BR/><I>I think that the Rambam in a letter to his son Rabeinu Avraham (Iggros Mussar) highly recommends Ibn Ezra to him, even going as far to compare him to Avraham Ovinu.<BR/><BR/>Since the Rambam viewed the non Mosaic authorship of verses throughout the Torah as heresy, how do you explain his reccomendation of Ibn Ezra. </I><BR/><BR/>See above.DEShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02795113792190583167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21083596.post-1157308439685788992006-09-03T14:33:00.000-04:002006-09-03T14:33:00.000-04:00Could you please tell me exactly where Ramban says...Could you please tell me exactly where Ramban says that thing about pouring gold down Ibn Ezra's throat? I'm having trouble finding it.DEShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02795113792190583167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21083596.post-1157286744876807182006-09-03T08:32:00.000-04:002006-09-03T08:32:00.000-04:00You say The Ramban might not protest because he th...You say The Ramban might not protest because he thinks the Ibn Ezra is right.<BR/>If the Ramban gives in effect a Kelallah to Ibn Ezrah for disagreeing with the gemarah over Yocheved's age, why should he suddenly feel that Ibn Ezrah is right to disagree with the Gemarah in Sanhedrin over the principle of Mosaic Authorship of the whole Torah. ?<BR/><BR/>(As for your view that the Ramban sometimes argues with the Gemarah, If you mean the Ramban in Tazriah. 111-A-2. You may believe you have a contradiction in Ramban but it is simpler to say that the Ramban makes a difference between believing a statement of the Gemarah was based on Greek science, leaving the Ramban an opening to possibly disagree, and where the Gemarah is discussing inyonim of Torah where one cannot.)<BR/><BR/>As for the importance of the matter. The Ramban in perush Mishnayis in chelek when listing the 13 Ikrim says that anybody who attributes non Mosaic authorship to even one verse or one Dikduk is a heretic, (With I assume the exception of the last verses of the Torah). The Rambam does not count disagreeing with the Gemarah (which although not allowed on Torah matters) as heresy.<BR/><BR/>So the supposed Ibn Ezra comments on Genesis 12:6 for example, would be heresy according to the Rambam. (The Ibn Ezrah on this verse starts talking about keeping secrets quiet which he never does when talking about the age of Yocheved, a sign that the author has realised he is moving up a stage in contraversiality.)<BR/><BR/>So again if the Ramban protests the Ibn Ezrah for disagreeing with the Gemarah on Torah matters, which is not one of the 13 Ikrim, he would have far more reason to protest against the supposed Ibn Ezra comments on Genesis 12:6 which is one of the 13 Ikrim.<BR/><BR/>Yet he does not. Using the Chida's reasoning the answer is obvious. He never wrote it.<BR/><BR/>I think that the Rambam in a letter to his son Rabeinu Avraham (Iggros Mussar) highly recommends Ibn Ezra to him, even going as far to compare him to Avraham Ovinu.<BR/><BR/>Since the Rambam viewed the non Mosaic authorship of verses throughout the Torah as heresy, how do you explain his reccomendation of Ibn Ezra.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21083596.post-1156976297866645132006-08-30T18:18:00.000-04:002006-08-30T18:18:00.000-04:00I don't think the Ramban's silence proves anything...I don't think the Ramban's silence proves anything. Ramban himself sometimes argues with the Gemara (see, for example, my quotations of him in III-B-1). The Ramban might not protest because he thinks the Ibn Ezra is right.<BR/><BR/>Also, it's not at all clear to me that the Ramban would have felt it so important to believe that the verses mentioned by Ibn Ezra were, indeed, written by Moshe. Maybe he didn't think it mattered all that much whether it was written by Moshe or by Joshua.DEShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02795113792190583167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21083596.post-1156974805103175482006-08-30T17:53:00.000-04:002006-08-30T17:53:00.000-04:00Your point of "perhaps Ramban just didn't feel it ...Your point of "perhaps Ramban just didn't feel it necessary to protest in every single instance"<BR/>would not apply to this particular Ibn Ezra. If the Ramban protested against Ibn Ezra disgreeing with the Gemarah. He would certainly have far more grounds to protest if he felt that Ibn Ezra was in effect denying one of the 13 Ikrim ie Torah Min Hashomayim, which is far more serious.<BR/><BR/>The Ramban's silence in this case speaks volumes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21083596.post-1156894125511850602006-08-29T19:28:00.000-04:002006-08-29T19:28:00.000-04:00Interesting. I don't know anything about Ibn Ezra...Interesting. I don't know anything about Ibn Ezra manuscripts. It is certainly my understanding that manuscripts were sometimes corrupted with later additions. It would be nice to know what an expert on the extant Ibn Ezra manuscripts says about the authenticity of certain relevant passages. I'll try to ask someone who may know. It is undeniable, however - as the Chida points out - that Ramban believed Ibn Ezra sometimes contradicted Chazal. The Chida's implicit suggestion - that if such a contradiction in the Ibn Ezra goes unchallenged by Ramban, it is not authentic - seems a bit contrived; perhaps Ramban just didn't feel it necessary to protest in every single instance. It would be useful to see a list of all of the contradictions of Chazal in the Ibn Ezra commentary, and a list of those which Ramban disputes.<BR/><BR/>I will probably be moving this post to a different blog in the near future. I will copy and paste the comments too, and I will make it clear on this blog how to access the new one.DEShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02795113792190583167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21083596.post-1156888061962084182006-08-29T17:47:00.000-04:002006-08-29T17:47:00.000-04:00Here is my rough translation of the relevant passa...Here is my rough translation of the relevant passage. [] indicates my addition. ()is transliteration where I am not sure of a precise translation. Other words have obviously also been transliterated<BR/><BR/>Rabbi Binyomin Ispinoza zal made a Biur on Ibn Ezra for the Neviim and Kesuvim and in his introduction brings what Rabbi Refoel Ashkenzi and the Italian rabbis in Kesav yad that was made clear (nisbarrer) to them that the pupils of Ibn Ezra interfered with his explanation (sholchu yad beferushoi) and added on from their knowledge things that are not so. And every term (loshoin) that you find in the Chumash and Neviim that is against our Rabbis zal is not from the Ibn Ezra himself [but] only his pupils without his knowledge after his death sholchu yad and Ibn Ezra and his chair is clean (Noki). This is Toiref Divreihem and if the words are correct tonuach Da'ateinu.<BR/><BR/>But what can we answer, sometimes the Ramban writes upon him with Toikef eg what he says in Parshas Shemois that gold should be poured [down his throat]. [1]<BR/><BR/>The Ramban was near to the time of Ibn Ezra and is nisameis etzloi that this is the Perush of Ibn Ezra himself. But look at it from another point of view (zil leidoch gisa). If all these strange expressions against the Law and Rezal are from Ibn Ezra why did not the Ramban testify on them. [disagree]<BR/><BR/>But it is obvious that there are some of them that are not from Ibn Ezra and strangers Sholtu Yod to write that which never entered his imagination.<BR/><BR/>[1]<BR/>[a reference I think to the age of when Yoicheved had a child where Ibn Ezra disagrees with the Gemarah]Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21083596.post-1156877230607740522006-08-29T14:47:00.000-04:002006-08-29T14:47:00.000-04:00Does the Chida provide any evidence supporting his...Does the Chida provide any evidence supporting his claim? (I don't have access to the book myself.)DEShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02795113792190583167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21083596.post-1156783242185809932006-08-28T12:40:00.000-04:002006-08-28T12:40:00.000-04:00The Chidah in shem hagedolim says (as far as I can...The Chidah in shem hagedolim says (as far as I can remember) that a lot of the text of ibn ezra was interfered with and added by others.<BR/><BR/>this apikorsus is obviously not written by Ibn EzraAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com