Tanach · Rishonim on Tanach · Ibn Ezra · Torah
Ibn Ezra on Leviticus 27:2/אבן עזרא על ויקרא כ״ז:ב׳
איפליא. יפריש ויבאר:
1SHALL CLEARLY UTTER. Yafli (clearly utter) means to explain1 as in Vat. Ebr. 38, not yafrish (set aside) as in the printed editions. and to clarify.
בבערכך נפשות. הטעם שידור נדר לאמר אם השם יעשה לי כך אפדה נפשי כדי ערכי או ערך בני או ערך בהמה וכ״ף בערכך על דעת כל המדקדקים נוסף והטעם בערך ויש אומרים כי הכ״ף לנכח הכהן ויפרש כערכך הכהן כערכך אתה והה״א יקרא לו ה״א הקריא׳ ואמר על הערכך שהיא מלה זרה כמו בתוך האהלי ולפי דעתי שהוא האהל שלי וכן הערכך:
2A VOW OF PERSONS.2, literally, lives. Its meaning is, he will take a vow saying: If God will do the following for me then I will redeem my life in accordance with its value, or the value of my son’s life, or the value of the life of a beast. The kaf3 suffix, which has the meaning of your (thy). of be-erkekha (according to thy evaluation) is, according to all of the grammarians,4) as if written be-erekh. Our verse literally reads: When a man shall clearly utter a vow of lives according to your valuation (be-erkekha) of lives to the Lord. The word “your” does not seem to belong in the verse. Hence these commentaries interpret the verse as follows: When a man shall clearly utter a vow of lives according to the valuation (be-erkekh) of lives to the Lord. superfluous. However, there is one who says that the kaf is directed to the kohen.5 refers to the kohen. This commentator explains our verse as follows: When a man shall clearly utter a vow of lives in accordance to what you the kohen shall value lives to the Lord. He explains ke-erkekha ha-kohen (v. 12) as, as thou the priest valuest it.6 as if written ke-erkekh ha-kohen because they believe that the kaf suffix of be-erkekha (according to thy evaluation) is superfluous, for if the kaf of be-erkekha refers to the kohen, then the word ha-kohen is redundant. He refers to the heh of ha-kohen as a vocative heh.7 of be-erkekha refers to the kohen, then the word ha-kohen is redundant. Hence the interpretation that ha-kohen does not mean the kohen but O kohen. This interpretation renders ke-erkekha ha-kohen as, as thou O priest valuest it. He says that the word, he-erkekha (of thy valuation) (v. 23), is an irregular word.8 literally reads, the valuation yours. Thus the heh in he-erkekha is irregular. The heh in he-erkekha does not present a problem for the first commentaries quoted by I.E., for they claim that the kaf of he-erkekha is superfluous and the word is to be interpreted as if written ke-erekh. He-erkekha is similarly to be read as if written he-erekh. It is like the word ha-oholi (of my tent)9 (of my tent) is irregular, for it is a noun with a suffix with the definite article prefixed to it. in the midst of my tent (Josh. 7:21). However, in my opinion the meaning of ha-oholi is, the tent, mine. Similarly he-erkekha (of thy valuation) (v. 23).10 is not irregular, for the heh serves to emphasize the point made by the word’s suffix (Weiser). However, I.E.’s interpretation presents a problem, for it contradicts the rule that the definite article is not placed before a word with a suffix. See Filwarg.
גוטעם נפשות. כלל לאדם ולבהמה:
3Nefashot11 (persons) takes in both men and beasts.