Secrets of the Ibn Ezra

Secrets of the Ibn Ezra

Rav Avrohom Ibn Ezra was born in Spain in the year 1089. He imbibed and mastered the rational, philosophical derech of Torah learning that was legacy of the talmidei chachomim of the region. For some reason, in the year 1140, when he was already 51 years old, Ibn Ezra changed his lifestyle and began to wander throughout Ashkenazic communities in other parts of Europe. Wherever he stayed, he supported himself by doing tutoring work and writing seforim for rich patrons. His first stop was Rome. After five years, he moved to Lucca, farther north in Italy, and then to the northeast, to Mantua. In 1148 he traveled to the south of France (the area refered to by our rabbis as ''Provence'') where he stayed in Béziers and then in Narbonne. In 1152 he moved up to Northern France, to the very heart of Tosafist country. We know that Rabbeinu Tam held the Ibn Ezra in high esteem, and we have correspondence between the two men. In 1158 Ibn Ezra wandered to England, which was probably a natural step considering the extensive financial, political, and cultural ties between Normandy and England at the time. The exact circumstances surrounding his death are shrouded in legend and mystery, but most scholars now agree that he died in England in the year 1164. J. L. Fleischer, Ibn Ezra's most respected biographer, says he was attacked and killed by ''anarchic English hordes'' while traveling a forest north of London.

As Ibn Ezra traveled and encountered different communities, he soaked up the culture of the world of Ashkenazic Torah learning. He was impressed by it in some areas (e.g. gemara learning) and disappointed with it in others (e.g. parshanus, dikduk). He took it upon himself to teach the Ashkenazim the systematic methods of Sephardi parshanus and dikduk, which he considered vastly superior and far more enlightened than what he found locally. One result of Ibn Ezra's work was that the linguistic advances of the most advanced Jewish grammarians who wrote in Arabic were brought to the Ashkenazi world. Before his arrival, parshanim like Rashi and the Rashbam had had access only to relatively primitive and inaccurate grammatical works, like those of ibn Saruk and ibn Labrat.

The most important and lasting accomplishment of R. Avrohom Ibn Ezra was his set of commentaries on Tanach. Ibn Ezra had been frustrated with Rashi's peirushim, which he felt lacked any real sense of pshat. He set out to teach the Ashkenazim how to read pesukim correctly with a precise knowledge of grammar and a sophisticated literary sensitivity. Though his goal was to educate the backwards, he had no intention of rocking the boat or shocking the naïve faith of his new readers. So he chose to conceal his most radical claims in the form of hints in his commentary, little allusions that only the initiated would pick up on. His plan was simple: People who already knew the secrets would recognize the clues and be reminded of the secret interpretations. People who didn't know the secrets wouldn't recognize the clues, wouldn't know what he was refering to, and would just ''go vaiter'' without being shocked. His plan seems to have worked quite well, since most of the ''secrets'' went unnoticed for centuries.

The most famous and hotly contested example of a ''secret'' in the commentary of Ibn Ezra has to do with a number of pesukim in the Chumash that seem from their context and style, to have been interpolated much later, after Matan Torah. For those of you who aren't already familiar with the whole shpiel, here's the most famous example:

והכנעני אז בארץ׃ יתכן שארץ כנען תפשה כנען מיד אחר ואם איננו כן יש לו סוד והמשכיל ידום
(פירוש ראב״ע, בראשית יב׃ו)
And the Kenaani was in the land then: [What is intended by the word ''then''?] It is possible that the Kenaanim had [just then] seized Eretz Kenaan from another [nation]. Should that [interpretation] not be correct, [the statement] has a secret. One enlightened [to this] will remain silent.
(R. Avrohom ibn Ezra to Bereishis 12:6)

The word ''אז'' sticks out like a sore thumb in that posuk, and Ibn Ezra seems to be hinting that the whole clause might have been added to the Torah later on. He offers another terutz, but only half-heartedly, intimating that his personal preference is the interpretation that is a ''secret.''

Later, in grappling with the exact meaning of the first two pesukim in Sefer Devorim, Ibn Ezra provides us with a fuller presentation of whatever this secret is:

ואם תבין סוד השנים עשר גם ויכתוב משה והכנעני אז בארץ בהר ה׳ יראה והנה ערשו ערש ברזל תכיר האמת
(פירוש ראב״ע, דברים א׃ב)
…If you understand the secret of the twelve [pesukim, Devorim 34:1–12], and also ''And Moshe wrote'' [Devorim 31:22], and ''And the Kenaani was in the land then'' [Bereishis 12:6], ''on the mountain of G-d, He will be seen'' [Bereishis 22:14], ''and behold, his bed is a bed of iron'' [Devorim 3:11]—[if you understand the secret of these pesukim] then you will acknowledge the truth.
(R. Avrohom ibn Ezra to Devorim 1:2)

Here, Ibn Ezra collects several examples of anachronistic language in the chumash, and tells us that they all have the same secret. His first example is the last twelve pesukim of the Torah, which discuss the events surrounding and after the death of Moshe Rabbeinu. Here, Ibn Ezra can at least rely on the gemara in Bava Basra, which states that the last eight pesukim may have been written by Yehoshua. (I once asked Rav Hershel Schachter whether Ibn Ezra was arguing on that gemara, since the gemara refers to only the last eight pesukim, and not the four before it. Rav Schachter told me that it was lav davka. I don't think most scholars of Ibn Ezra would agree with him, though.)

The first person who seems to have noticed this particular secret, was none other than the notorious seventeenth century kofer-par-excellence Baruch Spinoza. Spinoza cavalierly claimed that Ibn Ezra's big secret was that none of the Torah had been written by the Ribbono Shel Olam through Moshe Rabbeinu. This is, of course, absolutely ridiculous. The nineteenth century Tanakh scholar Shmuel Dovid Luzzatto (''Shadal'') took Spinoza to task for this absurd claim, and asserted that Ibn Ezra's view was simply that certain, individual pesukim had been interpolated later (by the anshei keneses hagedolah?) in order to make the Torah easier to read and follow. This claim is, of course, still quite shocking to most Orthodox Jews. It has been argued that such an assertation is in direct violation of the eigth ikkar of the Rambam, which requires every Jew to believe that the entire Torah was written by Moshe Rabbeinu. Various "frum" terutzim have been offered for the Ibn Ezra, but most people simply shrug their shoulders and move on.*

----------

In the late eighteenth-century, the Bible critic J. G. Eichhorn asserted that the second part of the book of Yeshayah was not in fact written by the Yeshayah who had written the first part, but rather by an another, anonymous prophet who lived two centuries later. (This second portion begins with the fortieth perek, with the famous words נחמו נחמו עמי.) Thus began the famous theory of ''Deutero-Isaiah'', which holds that the second part of Sefer Yeshayah is to be considered another book written by another man.

This theory has remained to this day widely endorsed by secular Bible scholars. It has also remained to this day widely condemned as apikorsus by Orthodox Jews. Take, for example, the case of Jakob Barth, the Tanakh scholar who taught at the Orthodox Hildesheimer seminary in Berlin. In his Beiträge zur Erklärung des Jesaiah (Berlin 1883–1884) Barth doesn't explicitly endorse the Deutero-Isaiah theory, but he still intimates that certain parts of Sefer Yeshayah couldn't have been written until after the return from the Babylonian captivity. Barth's study met with a fierce and angry attack from Isaac Hirsch that was published in the pages of the journal Jeschurun, the official media organ of the shtark Hirschian circle in Frankfurt. Barth was accused of playing with fire, with toeing the line of kefiroh. (The matter of the critical academic study of Judaism had long been a sore point of disagreement between the circle around Rav Shamshon Rephoel Hirsch in Frankfurt and the circle around Rav Azriel Hildesheimer in Berlin. Rav Hirsch himself had penned a scathing attack Rav Dovid Tzvi Hoffman's first major work, Mar Shmuel.)

There are many reasons secular Bible critics regard the last twenty-seven perokim of Yeshayah as a later work. Some of these reasons involve philology. Some involve literary style—everyone can see that the tone of the sefer changes drastically with the beginning of the fortieth perek. But the first, and most obvious reason for the critics' theory is the fact that much of the nevuah in the second part of Yeshayah describes historical events that would take place at the end of golus Bavel. In particular, the Persian king Koresh is mentioned by name twice. (44:28 and 45:1) Since secular Bible critics don't believe that there really is such a thing as nevuoh, that's all the proof they need. We Orthodox Jews, on the other hand, believe that our neviim foretold the future, so we obviously have no problem with Yeshayah foretelling the name of a Persian king who would arise two centuries after him. Accordingly Orthodox Jews associate the theory of Deutero-Isaiah with kefiroh of the worst kind—a denial of the existence of nevuoh itself.

With all the commotion, the words of the Ibn Ezra on the matter seem to have completely slipped under everyone's rader. He happens to have a ''secret'' for us here. Take a look at what he has to say in his peirush on the very first posuk of the portion of Yeshayah called Deutero-Isaiah by the kofrim:

ודע כי מעתיקי המצות ז״ל אמרו כי ספר שמואל כתבו שמואל והוא אמת עד וימת שמואל והנה דברי הימים יוכיח ששם דור אחר דור לבני זרובבל והעד מלכים יראו וקמו שרים וישתחוו ויש להשיב כאשר ישמעו שם הנביא ואם איננו והמשכיל יבין
(פירוש ראב״ע, ישעיה מ׃א)
…Be aware that the transmitters of the mitzvos [i.e. Cha]zal said that Shmuel [himself] wrote Sefer Shmuel, [whereas] this is [only] true up until [the posuk] ''And Shmuel died.'' [1 Shmuel 25:1] And this [approach to authorship I am hinting at] is proved by [Sefer] Divrei HaYomim, where [the text lists] generation after generation of the descendents of Zerubavel. [1 Divrei HaYomim 3:19–24] And the evidence [for using this approach here in Sefer Yeshayah] is [the posuk] ''Kings shall see and arise, princes shall bow'' [Yeshayah 49:7]. While one could answer [that this posuk means to say that the kings and princes will do this] when they hear the name of the prophet [i.e. long after he has died], should that [interpretation] not be correct, one enlightened [to the secret here] will understand.
(R. Avrohom ibn Ezra to Yeshayah 40:1)

It's very easy to overlook this passage if you don't examine it closely. (That was, of course, part of Ibn Ezra's plan.) First Ibn Ezra notes that Shmuel didn't write all of Sefer Shmuel, since he obviously he couldn't have written ''and Shmuel died'' and the material after it. Then he draws our attention to an extensive genealogy in Divrei HaYomim that seems to be a later interpolation, since it goes generations beyond the time when the book was supposed to have been composed. After providing us with this background, Ibn Ezra tells us to look at Yeshayah 49:7 at the words ''מלכים יראו וקמו שרים וישתחוו''.

What is bothering him about these words? Look at that posuk and the one immediately following it:

כה אמר־ה׳ גאל ישראל קדושו לבזה־נפש למתעב גוי לעבד משלים מלכים יראו וקמו שרים וישתחוו למען ה׳ אשר נאמן קדש ישראל ויבחרך׃ כה אמר ה׳ בעת רצון עניתיך וביום ישועה עזרתיך ואצרך ואתנך לברית עם להקים ארץ להנחיל נחלות שממות
(ישיעיה מט׃ז,ח)
So says G-d, the redeemer of Yisroel, his Holy One, to him whom man despises, to him whom the nation abhors, to a servant of rulers, kings shall see and arise, princes also shall bow, because of G-d who is faithful, and the Holy One of Yisroel, who has chosen you. So says G-d, in a time of favor I have answered you, and in a day of salvation I have helped you, and I will preserve you and give you for a covenant of the people, to restore the land, and to assign desolate inheritances to their owners.
(Yeshayah 49:7–8)

Now see what Ibn Ezra has to say when he gets to those pesukim in his peirush:

מלכים יראו וקמו׃ הנה כבר רמזתי לך זה הסוד בחצי הספר ועל דעת רבים כי המלכים כמו כורש כאשר ישמע דברי הנביא יקום וישתחוה׃ למען ה׳ כי נאמן בדברו׃ והנה כ״ף ויבחרך לעד על יושר זה הפירוש׃ (ח) בעת רצון עניתיך׃ גם זה עד על הרמז ורבים אמרו כי כ״ף עניתיך שב אל כורש והנה אין הפרשה דבקה
(פירוש ראב״ע, ישעיה מט׃ז,ח)
Kings shall see and arise: I have already hinted at this secret halfway through the book. [i.e. his comments to 40:1] [But] according to the majority opinion [i.e, not Ibn Ezra's], that when the kings, e.g. Koresh, hear the words of the prophet, they will rise and bow. Because of G-d: For He is faithful in his word. The כ״ף [at the end of] ויבחרך is evidence of the correctness of this explanaton. (8) At a time of favor I have answered you: This [wording] is also evidence for what I have been hinting at. The majority [of commentators, however] say that the כ״ף [at the end of] עניתיך refers back to Koresh, but then the section doesn't fit [into the larger context].
(R. Avrohom ibn Ezra to Yeshayah 49:7–8)

Ibn Ezra, in his acute sensitivity to literary nuance and changes in person and tense, is struck by something in those pesukim: G-d seems to be promising that when the prophesies finally come true, kings and princes will show their respect to the novi, who had been despised and treated badly by everyone up until then. But if Yeshayah is the novi here, how could Koresh and all the other kings and princes bow to him and show him their respect? He will have been dead for 200 years already!

Ibn Ezra suggests a simple, balebatishe terutz: All the posuk means to say is that when the vindicated words of Yeshayah are mentioned to those kings in the future, they will bow and acknowledge what a great prophet Yeshayah was. But Ibn Ezra goes on to explain that he isn't at all happy with this terutz, and that the explanation he really prefers is a ''secret''.

Ibn Ezra refers to this ''secret'' again at the end of his commentary on the famous ''Suffering Servant'' section of Sefer Yeshayah, the pesukim between 52:13 to 53:12. Controversy has raged over these pesukim for many centuries, since the Christians claim that they refer to none other than their own messiah. Many of our meforshim do battle with this interpretation, bringing proof after proof that these pesukim couldn't possibly refer to Yoshke.** Ibn Ezra explains the entire section, word by word, according to one of the mainstream Jewish interpretations, which is that the ''servant'' is a symbol for all of Klal Yisroel. But then, suddenly on the last posuk, Ibn Ezra lets us know that he himself doesn't agree with this derech. He tells us his own opinion is that the ''servant'' of the section is one and the same as the servant mentioned in earlier passages. Here are his words:

...והנה פרשתי לך כל הפרשה ולפי דעתי כי הנה ישכיל עבדי הוא שאמר הנביא עליו הן עבדי אתמך בו ויאמר לי עבדי אתה וכן כתוב בדעתו יצדיק צדיק עבדי לרבים וכתוב גוי נתתי למכים והסוד כאשר רמזתי בחצי הספר והנה כל הפרשיות דבקות זאת עם זאת
(פירוש ראב״ע, ישעיה נג׃יב)
…I have thus explained to you the entire section [i.e. according to the majority view, that the ''עבד'' of this section refers to the Jewish people, and not to the prophet himself]. But in my own opinion [the servant here, the one in] ''הנה ישכיל עבדי'' [posuk 53:12] is the very same [servant] about whom the prophet said ''הן עבדי אתמך בו'' [posuk 42:1], as well as ''ויאמר לי עבדי אתה'' [posuk 49:3]. And it is written [here] ''בדעתו יצדיק צדיק עבדי לרבים'' [posuk 53:11], [just as] it is written [above] ''גוי נתתי למכים'' [posuk 50:6]. And the secret is as I hinted halfway through the sefer. Now all the sections fit together well.
(R. Avrohom ibn Ezra to Yeshayah 53:12)

So what exactly is the "secret"? Throughout his explanations of all these nevuos Ibn Ezra systematically and consistently emphasizes the Bablylonian setting. Throughout his explanations of all these nevuos, he also emphasizes their autobiographical nature. He leaves it to us to connect the two and draw the obvious—and shocking—conclusion: A different novi, living two hundred years after the Yeshayah for whom the whole sefer is named, wrote all of these prophecies. According to Ibn Ezra, even the famous ''Suffering Servant'' narrative was written by this anonymous novi.

Note that Ibn Ezra wasn't motivated to come to his conclusion for any of the heretical reasons of the Modern Bible critics. Ibn Ezra obviously has no problem with a novi seeing into the future, which is why he doesn't mention his ''secret'' in his peirush either of the two places where Koresh's name is mentioned, which were the favorite proofs of the kofrim. Ibn Ezra came to his conclusions not because of any doubts as to the powers of nevuoh, but rather as result of his sophisticated literary and grammatical sensibilities, his acute sensitivity to all the dimensions of what we call poshut pshat.

For those interested in a more detailed and thorough treatment of Ibn Ezra's views on Sefer Yeshayah and the ''Servant'', see Uriel Simon, ''Ibn Ezra Between Medievalism and Modernism: The Case of Isaiah xl–lxvi'' in Vetus Testamentum Supplement 36 (Leiden, Holland: E. J. Brill, 1985)

---------------------------
*If you want to see something a little puzzling, look at the famous supercommentary on the Ibn Ezra known as the Mechokekei Yehudah. When the Mechokekei Yehudah deals with this issue, he quotes a few sentences out of context from Shadal, and leaves the unsuspecting reader with the impression that the great scientific bible scholar Shadal had some kind of frum teirutz for the Ibn Ezra so that it would end up that nothing was written by anyone other than Moshe Rabbeinu. If one weren't afraid to level such an accusation, it almost looks as if the Mechokekei Yehudah was deliberately trying to mislead his readers here.)

**One example is the Abarbanel, who points out that the pesukim describe the death of the ''servant'', so it couldn't possibly be refering to Moshiach, since Moshiach will not die before he has reigned. Abarbanel's peirush here doesn't even mention the idea he suggests and then rejects in his Yeshuos Meshicho, namely, that Moshiach could be a man who has already lived and died. This should give some pause to the legions of Lubavitcher chasidim who claim that Abarbanel's words in Yeshuos Meshicho are proof that he held that lemaaseh a dead man could be moshiach.