Detailed
Description |
|
Only edition of this two-part super-commentary on the Ibn Ezra by R. Jonah ben Solomon Flivarg. The title is from “Yet man is born to trouble, as the sparks (bene reshef) fly upward” (Job 5:7). The title page states R. Flivarg’s intent as being to explain the words of the great eagle, the Ibn Ezra, and to remove all the errors and correct all the distortions in the Torah, Prophets, Ketuvim, and Homash Megillot. He notes that there never was such a work previously, for until now sages have not attempted to explain that which is concealed in the Prophets and also on the Torah. The title page points out that the initial letters of the author’s name, Jonah ben (spelled completely) Solomon Flivarg are alluded to in the title בני רשף. There are approbations from R. Pinhas Brautstein, R. Pinhas Mohrash, R. Jacob Leib ben Abraham Eliezer ha-Kohen, and R. David ben Isaac Zevi Ortenburg. Next are two introductions by R. Flivarg, verse, rosh ha-tevot, and the Torah portion of the book. Part two, with its own title page and pagination is on the other biblical books. At the end are addenda.
R. Abraham ben Meir Ibn Ezra (1089–1164), the author of the basic text that Bene Reshef eluciodates, was one of the most important Jewish Bible exegetes; also a poet, composer of piyyutim, grammarian, translator, philosopher, astronomer, and astrologer. Exceptionally erudite, he was among the last creative geniuses of the Spanish "golden age." Nevertheless, despite the customary image of him, R. Ibn Ezra was neither a talmudic scholar (the suggestion that he studied in the yeshivahin Lucena has been refuted by Goldberg) nor a physician (his opposition in principle to medicine is detailed in his Long and Short commentaries to Exodus 21:19). He also lacked the requisite skills for business or public office, and therefore was unable to make a living in the accustomed professions of his social class – as a rabbi, dayyan, physician, businessman, or courtier. For lack of alternative, he became a professional poet, supported by patrons who loved poetry and sought fame. Ibn Ezra's dependence on a succession of benefactors is evident in the exaggerated praise he showered on them in his eulogies. The need to move from patron to patron, and his restless character forced R. Ibn Ezra to a life of wandering: besides his birthplace Tudela, we know that prior to 1140 he lived in Cordoba, Seville (where he raised his son Isaac), Christian Toledo (to which he apparently refers in his poem "Mi ‘Alah Shamayim" by the name "Edom," a rabbinic code-word for Rome and thus for Christianity), Gabes (Tunisia), Algeria, and Morocco. He did not, however, reach Egypt or the Land of Israel. His poetry (e.g., his poem "Gavhu Shehakim") refers to the adverse effect his prolonged wandering had on his family life. A significant portion of Ibn Ezra's commentary is devoted to precise and multifaceted linguistic clarifications, based on a critical adoption of the major achievements of the Spanish school of Hebrew philology. Particularly conspicuous is his tendency to apply the rules developed by his predecessors with extreme caution and stringency, and to limit to a bare minimum the prevalent recourse to exceptions and radical hypotheses (whenever he can do without them, he employs the expression: "there is no need"). For example, he rejects out of hand Ibn Janah's system of lexical substitution (that is, the legitimate interchange of similar words), and reduces to the minimum his method of consonantal substitution. Ibn Ezra demands that the exegetical enterprise be based on rational judgment, on the one hand, and on the master of all branches of knowledge, on the other: "Reason is the foundation, since the Torah was not given to those who have no knowledge, and the angel [i.e., mediator] between man and God is his intelligence" (Introduction to the standard commentary on the Pentateuch, the "Third Way"). He sought rationality not only in the rational commandments but even in the revelational commandments: "Heaven forbid that a single precept might contradict reason" (long comm. on Ex. 20:1). The narrative parts of the Pentateuch, too, must be interpreted in accordance with natural and psychological verisimilitude (comm. on Gen. 11:3, Ex. 20:1), except for miracles, which are utterly reasonable for one who believes in God's dominion over nature and is confident in the true testimony of Scripture. Miracles do contravene the laws of nature, but they do not contradict either reason (since God is omnipotent) or observation (by witnesses) (Sefer ha-Ibbur 10a). Accordingly, Ibn Ezra forcefully rejects the midrashic tendency to multiply miracles beyond those explicitly recounted in the Bible (long comm. on Dan. 1:15), but rejects doubts about the Noah pericope as the results of idle questions (comm. on Gen. 6:20).
|
