Tanach · Rishonim on Tanach · Ibn Ezra · Torah

Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:16/אבן עזרא על שמות א׳:ט״ז

אויאמר בילדכן את העבריות. כל שהוא ממשפחת עבר יקרא עברי, ועל אמונתו יקרא עברי על כן אבי כל בני עבר (ברא' י כא) הבא מעבר הנהר, עבר הנהר משתי העברים:

1WHEN YE DO THE OFFICE OF A MIDWIFE TO THE HEBREW WOMEN. Whoever comes from the family of ever (Eber)¹⁴⁶) was the ancestor of Abraham (Gen. 11:14-29). Hence his descendants are known as ivrim (Hebrews). is called a Hebrew. One is called a Hebrew because of his faith.¹⁴⁷, is also called a Hebrew (Filwarg). Krinsky explains: One is called a Hebrew both by virtue of descent from ever and also because of his or her belief in the faith of Abraham. Hence descendants of ever who do not believe in the faith of Abraham are not called Hebrews. Hence the children of Eber (Ever) in the father of all the children of Eber (Gen. 10:21) refers to those who came from the side (ever) of the river.¹⁴⁸. The reference is to the eastern side of the Euphrates. The side of the river refers to one of the banks of the river.¹⁴⁹ in Hebrew can refer to a person or to the side of a river. Gen. 10:21 reads, And unto Shem, the father of all the children of Eber (ever)…also were born children. Now Shem lived before Eber was born. I.E. assumed that Scripture would not report someone as being the ancestor of a person not yet born. Hence Eber in this verse cannot refer to a person. It refers to those born on one of the sides of the Euphrates. This interpretation contradicts the one I.E. gives in Genesis and elsewhere in Exodus. Cf. Gen. 10:21 and Ex. 21:2. Krinsky suggests emending “hence” to “or.” In other words, I.E. offers an alternative interpretation to the one he gave in Genesis and will offer later on in Exodus. Filwarg, on the other hand, suggests emending the text to read: Hence they err who say that the children of Eber, in the father of all the children of Eber, refers to those who came from the side of the river. For the side of the river refers to one of the sides of the river. In other words, ever cannot refer only to the western bank of the river where Abraham came from. A river has two sides and ever might refer to the eastern bank of the river, which is not the place that the Hebrews originally came from.

באמר בן קריש כי אל"ף אבנים נוסף מגזרת בנים והטעם המשבר כמו מי אפסים (יחז' מז ג), והנכון שהוא כמו באבנים, והאל"ף שרש:

2[THE BIRTHSTOOL.] Ben Kuraish¹⁵⁰ says that the alef of ovnayim (birthstool) is superfluous because ovnayim comes from the same root as banim (sons).¹⁵¹. Hence the alef of ovnayim is superfluous. For I.E’s concept of superfluous letters, see his comments on Gen. 1:1 and the notes thereto. The meaning of ovnayim is birthstool. Ovnayim is similar to afsayim (ankles)¹⁵². Hence the alef is superfluous. in waters that were to the ankles (Ezek. 47:3). In reality, however, ovnayim is similar to ba-ovnayim (at the wheel)¹⁵³. I.E. probably quoted from memory. Ovnayim in Jeremiah refers to a double stone (even) wheel. Hence the alef is a root letter. According to I.E. ovnayim are birth stones. and the alef is a root letter.

גוהמתן אותו. בסתר שלא יודע הדבר כי חמס היה עושה:

3THEN YE SHALL KILL HIM. In secret so that it will not become known, because he was committing an act of violence.¹⁵⁴

דומלת וחיה קשה מאוד בדקדוק, והיא זרה כי המשפט וחיתה כי ה"א השרש מן חיה יחליפוהו בתי"ו כמשפט בסמוכים "ולכל חית הארץ" (ברא' א, ל), והיה כן בעבור שהה"א והת"ו קרובים במכתב, ואין ביניהם לבד משך הנקודה שבתוך הה"א אבל לא במבטא כי הבו ל יש ביניהן בשמות, כי תחלה תקרא ה"א וכשתמשך הנקודה תקרא תי"ו, וזה לאות כי הכתב שבידינו הוא כתב עברי והכלל כי מלת חי, גם חיים בספק, כי הסכימו חכמי הדקדוק, כי וארפכשד חי (ברא' יא יב) מפעלי הכפל, וכמוהו כי אם תם הכסף (שם מז, יח) שהוא מן "תמם" וחיי כמו רבים חיים, ולפי דעתי כי זו הגזרה זרה ואם איננה כן יראנו ממנו כעל עתיד כמו אחוג יחוג לחוג היה ראוי שיאמר אֶחוי יחוי לחוי או כמו "סוב", סובו ציון (תה' מח יג) סבי עיר (ישעי' כג טז), והנה זאת לאות כי היא מהפעלים בעלי הה"א באחרונה אחר שלא מצאנו מגזרת חי אחת מכל הגזרות שהזכרנו הנה זאת לאות, כי היא מהפעלים בעלי הה"א באחרונה, כי מצאנו שיאמר אחיה, נחיה, יחיה, תחיה כמו יאמר מן היה, נהיה, אהיה, תהיה, יהיה, וא"כ הוא מגזרת חיה, כמו היה, ואעפ"י שמצאנו שיאמר וארפכשד חי, בלשון עבר לא נחוש לכל זה, אעפ"י שידמה שהוא מפעלי הכפל, והוצרכתי לומר ככה בעבור שראיתי כן אין וי"ו בכל המקרא שהוא שרש בסוף המלה, ואין טענה עלי ממלת "שלו" (איוב טז יב) כי הוי"ו תחת ה"א, כי אותיות אהו"י מתחלפות זו בזו, והעד "שלו כל בוגדי בגד" (ירמי' יב א) והוא מן שלה והנה אפרש לך למה לא תבא וי"ו שרש בסוף המלה, והיה זה בעבור כי הוי"ו ישרת בסוף בעבור יחיד שאיננו נמצא כמו עבדו ואמתו (למטה כ יז) וסימן לשון רבים "פרו ורבו" (ברא' א כב) וגם יש וי"ו נוסף כמו בנו בעור (במד' כד ג), ואילו היה וי"ו שרש היה מתערב עם אחת מאלו השלשה ווין שהזכרנו, יחיד, ורבים, ונוסף, ולא תדע המלה, גם ככה אומר לך באות יו"ד שלא תבא שרש באחרונה כי הוא סימן יחיד מדבר יָדִי (ברא' מב לז) גם יָדָי (דבר' ט טו), וסימן רבים בסמוך, "ידי נשים רחמניות" (איכה ד י) וסימן נקבה "דעי וראי" (ש"א כה יז), ויו"ד היחוס, העברי, או העבריה (דבר' טו יב), גם נוסף בפעלים, המגביהי (תה' קיג ה) להושיבי (שם שם ה), גם בשמות "בני אתונו" (ברא' מט יא) גם במלות הטעם זולתי (דבר' א, לו) מני אפרים (שופ' ה' יד), ובעבור כל זה אינו ראוי שיבוא יו"ד שרש באחרונה, פן תתערב לנו המלה עם אחת מכל אלה שהזכרנו על כן אמרתי כי מלת וחיה זרה, והיא כמו וחיתה ותהיה מהפעלים בעלי הה"א באחרונה כאשר פירשתי:

4[THEN SHE SHALL LIVE.] The word va-chayah (then she shall live) is irregular and presents a very difficult grammatical problem. The rules of grammar require va-chayetah¹⁵⁵ is masculine. Va-chayetah is feminine. Since the Bible speaks of a daughter the latter form should have been used. because the heh of the root¹⁵⁶. changes to a tav,¹⁵⁷ as it does in the construct in the case of the word chayat (beast of)¹⁵⁸. in and to every beast of the earth (Gen. 1:30). The reason for the change is that the heh and the tav are similar in appearance when written. The only difference between them is the extension of the dot that is within the heh. For the letter tav is first a heh. It is only when the dot is extended that it becomes a tav.¹⁵⁹ is open on the left side with the exception of a tiny line (referred to as a dot by I.E.) at the bottom. The tav is closed on both the right and left sides. Thus by drawing from the small line (the dot) to the top of the letter, the heh becomes a tav. However, the tav and the heh are pronounced completely differently.¹⁶⁰ They also have different names.¹⁶¹, one will not think he heard tav. This proves that our form of the letters is the original Hebrew script.¹⁶² 22a) over whether the original script of the Torah was identical to the script currently in use (the so-called Assyrian script), or whether the Torah was originally written in a script known as “Hebrew script.” In the Assyrian script the heh and the tav resemble each other. In the “Hebrew script” they are totally different. The fact that the Torah substitutes a heh for a tav because they resemble each other shows that the Torah was originally written in the Assyrian script. Historically speaking, the opinion that the Torah was given in “Hebrew script” is right, for all Hebrew writing extant from the period of the first commonwealth is in the “Hebrew script.”Generally speaking, the root of the word chai (lived) and the root of the word chayyim (life) are in doubt, for the grammarians have concluded that the root of the word chai (lived) in And Arpachshad lived (Gen. 11:12) is chet, yod, yod. The word tam (spent) in how that our money is all spent (Gen. 47:18) is similar, for it comes from the root tav, mem, mem.¹⁶³ The grammarians also agree that the plural of the root chet, yod, yod is chayyim (life). However, in my opinion we are dealing with an irregular root.¹⁶⁴ forms, the word chai is written as if it came from the root chet, yod, yod. On the other hand, it is conjugated in the other kal forms as if it came from the root chet, yod, heh. If this is not so¹⁶⁵ let someone show me a case where this root is conjugated in the imperfect according to the paradigm of chet, gimel, gimel, namely, achog (I will celebrate), tachog (you will celebrate), yachog (he will celebrate), la-chog (to celebrate).¹⁶⁶ imperfect. If the root of chai were chet, yod, yod, it should be conjugated achoy, yachoy, la-choy in the imperfect or like sov (go about) or sobu (walk about) in Walk about Zion (Ps. 48:13) and sobbi (go about)¹⁶⁷ or sobbi is samekh, bet, bet. Sov and sobbi are imperative forms. in Go about the city (Is. 23:16). This is proof that the word chai comes from a root ending in a heh. The fact that we do not find the root of chai conjugated in any of the above-mentioned forms is proof that it belongs to those verbs whose stems end in a heh,¹⁶⁸. I.E. is usually not this verbose and repetitious. Filwarg suggests that from “the fact” until “for we say” is an explanatory gloss that was incorporated into the text. The original reading was: This is proof that the word chai comes from a root ending in a heh., for we say echyeh, nichyeh, etc. for we say echeyeh (I will live), nichyeh (we will live), eheyeh (I will be), tiheyeh (you will be), yiheyeh (he will be), all of which come from the root heh, yod, heh. Now if this is the case it comes from the root chet, yod, heh and is like the word haya (was).¹⁶⁹. The fact that we find the word chai (lived) employed as a third person perfect in arpachshad chai (Arpachshad lived) (Gen. 11:12) does not disturb us.¹⁷⁰. We are not bothered by the aforementioned even though it appears that chai comes from a double root.¹⁷¹ is the normal conjugation of the word if it comes from the root chet, yod, yod. I.E. is not disturbed by this because he believes this root to be irregular. See note 155. What forced me to come to this conclusion is the fact that I saw that there is no root in Hebrew that ends in a vav.¹⁷². See further in I.E.’s note. The word shalev (at ease) (Job 16:12) does not disprove my contention.¹⁷³ appears to come from the root shin, lamed, vav. Its vav is in place of a heh,¹⁷⁴. since the letters alef, heh, vav, yod interchange. Proof that what I say is correct is the word shalu (secure) in Wherefore are all they secure that deal treacherously (Job 12:1). For the root of shalu is shin, lamed, heh.¹⁷⁵ is the noun form of the verb shalu. Hence the root of shalev must be the same as the root of shalu.I will now explain to you why a vav is never employed as a third letter of a root. The latter is so because the vav serves as a third person singular suffix, as in the words avdo va-amato (his man-servant nor his maid-servant) (Ex. 20:14). The vav also serves as the sign of the plural, as in peru u-revu (be fruitful and multiply) (Gen. 1:22). There are also superfluous vavs, as in beno be’or (the son of Beor) (Num. 24:3).¹⁷⁶. Hence the vav of beno is superfluous. Now if the vav was also used as the final letter of a root it would be confused with one of the three types of vavs that we have just mentioned, namely, the vav indicating a third person singular suffix, the vav indicating a plural, and the superfluous vav; we could not then ascertain the meaning of the word.¹⁷⁷ is a root letter or a suffix (Krinsky). The same is also true of the yod. The yod cannot serve as the final letter of a stem because it is used as a first person singular suffix, as in the word yadi (my hand) (Gen. 42:37). It is also employed as a first person plural suffix, as in the word yadai (my hands) (Deut. 9:15). It is also the sign of the plural construct, as in yede (the hands of) in The hands of women full of compassion (Lamentations 4:10). It is used as the sign of the feminine imperative, as in de’i and re’i (know and consider) (I Sam. 25:17). It is used to indicate relationship, as in ha-ivri o ha-ivriyah (a Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman) (Deut. 15:22). The yod is also used superfluously in verbs, as in ha-magbihi (that is enthroned) (Ps. 113:5) and in le-hoshivi (that He may set him) (Ps. 113:8).¹⁷⁸ and le-hoshiv. Hence the yods are superfluous. It is used superfluously with nouns, as in beni atono (his ass’s colt) (Gen. 49:11)¹⁷⁹. Hence the yod is superfluous. and also with particles, as in zulati (save) (Deut. 1:36) and minni ephrayim (out of Ephraim) (Judges 5:14).¹⁸⁰ and min. Hence the yods are superfluous. For these reasons the yod is not employed as a final root letter lest it be confused with one of the above-noted yods. Therefore I maintain that the word va-chayah (then shall she live) is irregular and is a variant of va-chayetah. It belongs, as I have already explained, in the family of verbs ending in a heh.