Tanach · Rishonim on Tanach · Ibn Ezra · Torah

Ibn Ezra on Exodus 3:2/אבן עזרא על שמות ג׳:ב׳

אוירא. יש מפרשים בלבת אש בלהבת אש והנכון בעיני כי פירושו בלב האש כי כן מצאנו מה אמולה לבתך (יחז' טז), ור' אדנים אמר, אילו היה כן היה בלבת בחיר"ק תחת הלמ"ד, כמו אל גִנַת אגוז (שה"ש ו יא) והנה שכח וכְגַנָה זרועיה תצמיח (ישעי' סא יא):

1APPEARED. Some interpret be-labbat esh to mean: in a flame of fire.⁴ (compare Num. 21:28). Those who say that be-labbat means in a flame explain that be-labbat is short for be-lahavat. However, it appears to me that its meaning is, in the heart⁵ in the word labbat. of the fire, for we indeed find, How weak is thy heart (libbatekh) (Ezek. 16:30).⁶ is the word libbah (heart) plus the second person pronominal suffix. Thus libbah means heart and labbat means heart of. It should be noted that the more familiar form for heart is lev. However, Rabbi Adonim⁷ says that if this were so, then be-labbat would have been vocalized with a chirik beneath the lamed like the word ginnat (garden of) in I went down into the garden of nuts (Canticles 6:11).⁸ is the construct form of libbah our text should read libbat not labbat, because libbah is vocalized like ginnah (garden), and the construct of ginnah is ginnat, not gannat. Now, Rabbi Adonim seems to have forgotten the word gannah (garden)⁹ or gannah. Similarly, the word for heart may be vocalized libbah or labbah. In the former the construct form is libbat, in the latter, labbat. The word in our verse follows the paradigm of labbah, hence the form labbat. in And as the garden causeth the things that are sown in it to spring forth (Is. 61:11).

בהסנה. אמר הגאון כי זה מין קוץ, "ורצון שוכני סנה" (דבר' לג טז) שמים והטעם על השם הנכבד ור' ישועה אמר הכבוד ששכן בסנה ולא דבר נכונה, כי איך יקרא שוכני על רגע אחד, ועוד למה נאמר על גזרת פועל, ואיננו כן עושה שמים וארץ (תה' קכו ח) כי השם הוא עושה תמיד ומעמידם כהגה היוצא מפי אדם ועוד אחר שהזכיר כל מגד הזכיר באחרונה רצון השם, ועוד מה טעם להזכיר זה המלאך, ועוד היה ראוי להיותו שוכני בסנה הידוע, ולפי דעתי כי כל סנה אחד הוא, והוא מין קוץ יבש, וככה הוא בלשון ישמעאל, וככה הר סיני בעבור הסנה וכן פי' ורצון שוכני סנה, רצון שיבקש השוכן במקום הסנה, שהוא דורש ומבקש תמיד שיעשה השם רצונו, וילחלח ארצו שהוא שוכן בה, שהיה מקום יובש וסנה, עד שיהא בא הרווי' והיתה כגן רוה מלוחלח, והודיעו "מתוך הסנה" בה"א הדעת, כי הם דברי משה בכותבו התורה, ובוער מהפעלים היוצאים, כי אש בוערה כמו "אש אוכלה" (דבר' ד כד), והעד "כאש תבער יער" (תה' פג טו) והנה האש שהיה בסנה בוער כל אשר סביביו, כי זה כמו "שלחו באש מקדשך" (תה' עד ז), וככה ההר בוער באש (דבר' ה כ):

2THE BUSH. Saadiah Gaon says that seneh (bush) is a type of thorn bush. He further explains that the word seneh in And the good will of Him that dwelt (shokhni) in the bush (seneh) (Deut. 33:16) means heaven;¹⁰ has two meanings. It means either a thorn bush or heaven (Filwarg). that is, it refers to God the glorious.¹¹). Rabbi Joshua,¹² on the other hand, says that the verse refers to the glory that dwelt in the bush.¹³ However, Rabbi Joshua spoke incorrectly, for how can God be called “Him that dwelleth in the bush” when he dwelt there for but a moment.¹⁴ Furthermore, why is the word shokhni (dwelt) in the po’el form?¹⁵ is the present form of words in the kal. Since God only revealed Himself once in the bush the perfect shakhan (dwelt) should have been used. The word oseh (makes) in Who makes (oseh) heaven and earth (Ps. 121:2) is different,¹⁶ (makes) is a po’el, a present form. Now God made heaven and earth at the time of creation. He does not at present make heaven and earth. We thus see that Scripture uses the present form to describe what God did in the past. Now if God is described as making heaven and earth, why can’t He be described as dwelling in the bush? I.E. answers that the two can’t be compared. as God is constantly making and causing heaven and earth to exist in the same manner as speech issues from the mouth of man.¹⁷ (oseh) heaven and earth. Isaac Husik in A History of Medieval Jewish Philosophy, J.P.S., Philadelphia, 1940, (p. 190) notes that I.E. “seems to favor the idea of eternal creation and maintenance of the universe, the relation of which to God is as the relation of speech to the speaker, which exists only so long as the speaker speaks. The moment he ceases speaking the sounds cease to exist.” Additionally, after mentioning all the precious things (Deut. 33:13-16), Scripture concludes with the good will of God.¹⁸. If Him that dwelt in the bush refers to God, why put the Lord’s blessings last (Krinsky)? Moreover, what reason is there to mention this angel?¹⁹ Furthermore, Scripture should have read, ba-seneh (in the bush)²⁰) rather than: And the good will of Him that dwells in a bush (shokni seneh). and thereby would have referred to the well-known bush.²¹In my opinion seneh (bush) refers to only one thing,²² does not mean a thorn bush or heaven. It has only one meaning. namely, a type of dry thorn bush. This is the case in Arabic.²³. Mount Sinai is so named because this type of bush grew there.²⁴ which grows there. Similarly, its²⁵. interpretation is: and the good will that he who lives in the place of the bush (seneh) seeks; that is, a person living in such a place entreats and prays that God do his will and wet the land that he lives in. He prays that God change it from a dry place, a place where the seneh grows, to an amply watered place so that it becomes like a wet and well-watered garden. Scripture states that an angel of the Lord appeared out of the midst of the bush.²⁶ (the bush) implies a distinctive bush. Since there was as of yet nothing special about the bush, Scripture should have read seneh (a bush). It should be noted that J.P.S. translates ha-seneh as a bush. However, its literal translation is, the bush. The word seneh has the definite article the (heh) prefixed to it because these are Moses’ very own words in writing the Torah.²⁷The word bo’er (burned) is a transitive verb. The phrase a burning fire is similar to a devouring fire (Deut. 4:24). As the fire that burneth (tivar) the forest (Ps. 83:15) is proof of this.²⁸ is transitive. Now the fire that burned in the bush devoured all that was around it. Our verse is similar to They have set Thy sanctuary on fire (Ps. 74:7).²⁹ (the bush burned with fire). I.E. believes this should be explained as if written: ba-seneh bo’er esh (a fire burnt the bush). He proves that this is the meaning of the clause through Ps. 74:7, which reads: shilchu va-esh mikdashekha. The literal meaning is: they have set with fire thy sanctuary. According to I.E. this verse is to be read as if written: shilchu esh be-mikdashekha (they have set fire in thy sanctuary) (Filwarg). While the mountain did burn with fire (Deut. 5:20) is also similar.³⁰ (while the mountain burned with fire). Now mountains do not burn. Hence I.E. says that the verse should be interpreted as: the mountain consumed its environment with fire. I.E. explains thus because he believes bo’er to be a transitive verb.

ג ומלת אֻכָּל שם התואר כמו פעול, וכמוהו אם תראה אותי לוקח מאתך (מ"ב ב י) שהוא קמוץ וככה לנער היולד (שופ' יג ח), כהם יוקשים בני האדם (קהלת ט יב) ואלה הפעלים כאשר הם יוצאים, על כן ורגל מוּעָדֶת (משלי כה יט) איננה כמוהם רק השורק תחת חולם, והוא כמו פועלת:

3[WAS NOT CONSUMED.] The word ukkal (consumed) is an adjective.³¹ (consumed) appears to be a third person pu’al perfect. However, if this were the case it would be vocalized with a pattach, not a kamatz, and would have been preceded by lo, not by enennu (literally, is not). It is similar to the pa’ul.³². If it were pa’ul it would read akhul. The words lukkach (taken), which is vocalized with a kamatz in if thou see me when I am taken (II Kings 2:10), yullad (shall be born) in unto the child that shall be born (Jud. 13:8), yukashim (snared) in even so are the sons of man snared (Eccles. 9:12) are similar.³³-like vocalizations. Now since these verbs are transitive, the word mu’edet (unsteady) in and an unsteady leg (Prov. 25:19) cannot be classified among these words³⁴ also appears to be a pu’al-like adjective and should be classified as such, along with ukkal, lukkach, yullad, and yukashim. as these words are transitive.³⁵ form. Mu’edet is similar to mo’edet, a po’elet, with the exception that a shuruk has been substituted for a cholam.³⁶ is a variation of mo’edet, which is a po’elet, the kal singular participle form that is vocalized cholam, segol, segol.