[Avodah] The Ramban on the Ibn Ezra

[Micha Berger]

With discussed "Higher" Bible Criticism before, we've discussed the IE on
the topic before, RGS went the next step -- the Ramban on the IE on Bible
Criticism. I am includng the comment, and I would have written something
similar.

<https://www.torahmusings.com/2018/05/ramban-on-ibn-ezras-heresy>

:-)BBii!
-Micha

    Ramban on Ibn Ezra's Heresy Posted by: Gil Student

    R. Avraham Ibn Ezra has long been a controversial figure. R. Shlomo
    Luria (Yam Shel Shlomo, intro to Bava Kamma) respectfully but strongly
    rejects his entire approach to Torah commentary. What does the Ramban,
    one of the classical commentaries whose work serves as a foundation
    for modern Jewish thought, think of his predecessor, Ibn Ezra? He
    certainly disagrees often with Ibn Ezra, sometimes sharply. But
    there may be a more fundamental reason for opposition.

    At the end of Ramban's commentary on Shir Ha-Shirim, he writes
    that anyone who says that Ezra the scribe added to the Torah --
    such as Gen. 13:6 or Deut. 3:11 -- is a heretic (Kisvei Ha-Ramban,
    vol. 2 p. 548). Ibn Ezra famously suggests that four verses imply
    post-Mosaic interpolations -- Gen. 12:6, 22:14, Deut. 3:11,
    31:22. Ramban, who shows clear expertise in Ibn Ezra's Torah
    commentaryn quotes two of these four verses in describing the
    heretic! Coincidence? R. Betzalel Naor, in his annotated edition
    of Rashba's Ma'amar Al Yishma'el (Orot: Spring Valley, NY, 2008,
    pp. 25-27) finds this correspondence convincing. The author of the
    commentary on Shir Ha-Shirim must have been condemning Ibn Ezra as
    a heretic. Even though some supercommentaries and scholars dispute
    the claim that Ibn Ezra ever intended anything other than that
    Moshe wrote those verses prophetically, many believe he made the
    more radical claim.[1] If so, this passage from the Shir Ha-Shirim
    commentary condemns him as a heretic.

    However, R. Naor points out that Ramban did not write that
    commentary. R. Chaim Dov Chavel argues cogently in his introduction
    to that work that it was written by the earlier, kabbalist R. Ezra
    of Gerona (Kisvei Ha-Ramban, vol. 2 pp. 473-475). If so, we can ask
    whether Ramban agreed with R. Ezra's evaluation. R. Naor (ibid.,
    pp. 136-143) makes the following points and suggestions:

    1- Even in his introduction to his Torah commentary, Ramban
       expresses his mixed attitude toward Ibn Ezra, which he calls
       "a public rebuke and private affection." This might be used to
       describe a commentary that is both brilliant but occasionally
       sacrilegious. However, Ramban calls him "Rabbi" Ezra, a term
       of respect.

    2- It could be that Ramban interpreted Ibn Ezra conservatively,
       as some supercommentators and scholars have. If so, he could
       agree with R. Ezra of Gerona generally but disagree with him
       about Ibn Ezra.

    3- Ramban unquestionably rejected any post-Mosaic interpolations
       into the Torah, as seen in his general introduction to his
       commentary. While hiss attitude toward the level of prophecy of
       the Torah varies (commentary to Num. 16:5), that is nowhere near
       the claim that any verse postdates Moshe.

    4- Rabbeinu Tam wrote a poem in praise of Ibn Ezra. Perhaps this
       influenced Ramban to judge him favorably as an inadvertent heretic,
       which was a status that, according to the Ra'avad (Hilkhos Teshuvah
       3:7), even great scholars fell into.

    5- The Chida (Shem Ha-Gedolim, part 1, alef 89) quotes R. Binyamin
       Spinoza, a late eighteenth century rabbi, who deduces from
       Ramban's failure to argue against Ibn Ezra's radical suggestions
       that those comments must be late forgeries (interpolations?). Had
       Ramban seen them, he would surely have objected.

    In the end, once we determine that the commentary to Shir Ha-Shirim is
    misattributed, we can only speculate about Ramban's attitude toward
    Ibn Ezra. Maybe he agreed with R. Ezra of Gerona's condemnation
    or maybe he felt the belief was wrong but not heretical. Or maybe,
    as R. Naor suggested, he rejected the belief as heretical but not
    the person.

    (Republished from May '13)

    [1] On this disagreement, see R. Yonatan Kolatch, Masters of the Word,
    vol. 2 pp. 310-318.

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


    J. C. Salomon
    May 31, 18 at 6:49 pm

    Ibn Ezra to Gen. 36:31 strongly rejects and condemns the notion that
    the verse "And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom,
    before there reigned any king over the children of Israel" is a late
    addition to the text.

    I might add a sixth possibility to the list: that Ibn Ezra held that
    certain verses were added by Yehoshua; and that while Ramban might
    have disagreed with this view, he'd have seen it as a legitimate
    extension of the similar Talmudic view regarding the last eight
    verses in the Torah and therefore not heretical.