Tanach · Rishonim on Tanach · Ibn Ezra · Torah
Ibn Ezra on Leviticus 2:1/אבן עזרא על ויקרא ב׳:א׳
אונפש כי תקריב. נפש אדם והזכיר הנפש שהמנחה נדבה גם הנפש תקרא נדיבה ורוח נדיבה תסמכני:
1AND WHEN ANY ONE BRINGETH. The word nefesh (anyone) means a person. Scripture mentions nefesh1. However, in chapter 1, it refers to a person by the term adam (man). See Lev. 1:2. Hence I.E.’s comment. because the meal offering is a free will offering and nefesh is called “willing.”2 also means spirit. Compare, And let a willing spirit uphold me (Ps. 51:14).3 and not adam see Rashi on verse 1.
בסלת. קמח חטה נקיה והיא הנקראת בלשון קדר סמי״ד והנה אין ראוי להיות מנחה לגבוה כי אם מהמין שאין למעלה הימנו:
2FINE FLOUR. The meaning of solet (fine flour) is pure wheat flour. It is the same as that which is called samid in Arabic. Look, it is not fitting that a meal offering brought to the Most High come from anything than which nothing better exists.4 What is the value of this work today? From an historical and intellectual view, Ibn Ezra’s commentary on the Pentateuch is most important, as explained previously in the preface to Genesis. His influence can be seen in all subsequent Hebrew Biblical commentaries, particularly that of Nahmanides. His influence is equally apparent on Maimonides both in his philosophical work, the Guide of the Perplexed, and his halakhic work, his Mishneh Torah, extending also to many later Biblical scholars and philosophers. All this is well documented in Dr. Strickman’s forewords to the five books of this set. In spite of all of this, however, the question of the English translation’s value still remains. In his introduction to his commentary on the Torah, Ibn Ezra writes, “With regard to verses which deal with laws, statutes and regulations, if we find two possible interpretations for a verse and one of them in keeping with the interpretation of the transmitters of tradition, all of whom were righteous men, then without reservation and with all our might we will rely on the truth of their words. Heaven forbid that we should join the Sadducees who claim that the traditions of the Rabbinic sages contradict the literal meaning of Scripture and the rules of grammar. The fact of the matter is that our ancient sages are true and all their words are true” (Vol. 1, pp. 18,19). However, it must be noted that the rabbis who posited post-Mosaic changes in the Torah were men of stellar reputation. Abarbanel (Num. 21:1) claimed, though his opinion is very questionable, that Nahmanides held such views regarding Num. 21:1-3. Furthermore, despite the fact that Maimonides’ thirteen principles of Judaism ultimately became part of the liturgy and thus were accepted at face value by all pious Jews, in practice not all of Maimonides’ pronouncements on what constitutes heresy were accepted by post-Maimonidian authorities. There was room for difference. For example, according to Maimonides one who directs his or her prayer to anyone but God is guilty of idol worship. Nevertheless, there are prayers that are directed to angels or to God’s attributes. Thus there had to be another reason for normative Judaism’s rejection of the notion of any post-Mosaic changes in the Torah.