Hermeneia - Nr.

33/2024

Jacques J. Rozenberg*

Spinoza and his Relationship to the

Hermeneutics of R. Abraham Ibn Ezra: The
Super-Commentaries and the Semantics of
Narrative 1

Abstract: In this article, I will seek to clarify the nature of Spinoza's relationship to
R. Abraham Ibn Ezra. First, by analyzing Spinoza's thesis concerning the
hermeneutics of R. Ibn Ezra in the Theologico-Political Treatise (TTP). Then I will
confront this thesis with the commentaries of R. Ibn Ezra himself, and with some
great commentaries devoted to them. Finally, I will propose a semantic approach
to the different narrative levels of the biblical text, capable of resolving several
textual difficulties that drew Spinoza's attention.

Keywords: Spinoza, R. Abraham Ibn Ezra, super-commentaries, hermeneutics,

narrative, semantics, Midrash, Historical criticism

The theoretical approaches of R. Ibn Ezra (1089/1092-1167) and

Spinoza (1632-1677) have been compared, emphasizing their common
interest in the philology of Hebrew, in the interpretation of the Bible, their
preference for its literal reading (pshat) to the detriment of homiletical
reading, as well as the importance of scientific knowledge.2 It is the elliptical

* Researcher, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (France). I would like to thank

Tzvi Langermann and David Lemler for their helpful comments on a previous version of
this article. Email: [email protected].
1 Concerning the commentaries of R. Ibn Ezra on the Pentateuch, I have used the classic

edition of the Miqra‟ot Gedolot. The scientific edition can be found in the Keter Edition
(Menahem Cohen, Ed.), Ramat Gan, Bar Ilan University, 2022. I used also the version
published by H. Kreisel (Ed.), Hamishah qadmoney mefarshey R. Abraham Eben 'Ezr'a.
Beer Sheva, Ben Gurion University Press, 2007. Concerning Spinoza's works, all
translations from Hebrew and Latin are my own, unless otherwise indicated. Regarding the
works of Spinoza, I refer to the Latin edition: Baruch de Spinoza Opera, edited by Carl
Gebhardt, Heidelberg, Universitätsbuchhandlung Carl Winter, 1925. However, regarding
the Tractatus Theologico-Politicus I use the Latin text established by Fokke Akkerman and
published bilingually by Jacqueline Lagrée and Pierre-François. Moreau, Traité Théologico-
Politique. Paris, PUF, 1999. The English translations of Spinoza's texts are mine. Regarding
the transliteration of Hebrew, I have generally followed the system of Ch. L. Echols and
Th. Legrand Transliteration of Hebrew Consonants, Vowels, and Accents, etc.
Academia.edu.
https://www.academia.edu/5388085/Transliteration_of_Hebrew_Consonants_Vowels_an
d_Accents_etc
2 Tamar M. Rudavsky, The Science of Scripture: Abraham Ibn Ezra and Spinoza on

Biblical Hermeneutics. In Steven Nadler, Ed., Spinoza and Medieval Jewish Philosophy.

37
Spinoza and his Relationship to the Hermeneutics of R. Abraham Ibn Ezra

character of R. Ibn Ezra's interpretations that allowed Spinoza to project

into them what has been called his "Marranism of reason," which forced
him to hide his inner thoughts and philosophical truth from the multitude. 3
Indeed, according to Spinoza, R. Ibn Ezra really thought that Moses was
not the author of the Pentateuch. However, because of the relentlessness of
the Pharisees, he could not openly support his thesis. Spinoza thus praises
R. Ibn Ezra, describing him as "a man of freer complexion and great
erudition" (liberioris ingenii vir et non mediocris eruditionis), and he emphasizes
that he had to hide his own opinions because "he did not dare to explain his
thought openly" (non ausus est mentem suam aperte explicare).4 This article aims
to examine the use that Spinoza makes of R. Abraham Ezra‟s texts,
confronting it with the literal analysis that should be made of this author. In
doing so, il points out the probable influence that the super-commentaries
on R. Abraham Ezra‟s hermeneutics may have had on Spinoza.

The ambiguous relations of Spinoza to R. Abraham Ibn Ezra

Recall that contrary to the apparent esteem which Spinoza

expressed with respect to R. Abraham Ibn Ezra, in Chapter II of the TTP
Spinoza opposes R. Ibn Ezra's interpretation of the etymology of the term
prophecy (nevu'ah), stressing that he "did not have an exact knowledge of
Hebrew" (qui linguam Hebraicam non adeo exacte novit), despite that R. Ibn Ezra
is considered one of the greatest Hebraist of the Middle Ages, having
himself written five books of Hebrew grammar.5 Nevertheless, Spinoza
developed his criticism of the Bible on the basis of the hermeneutics of R.
Ibn Ezra. Spinoza began by examining his explanation of the verse of
Deuteronomy I: 2, including what he calls the "mystery of the twelve"
(mysterium duodecim): "On the other side of the Jordan, through the
wilderness, in the Araba.... If you understand the secret of the twelve” as
well as "and Moses wrote" (Deuteronomy 31:9), "and the Canaanites were
then in the land" (Genesis 12:6), "on the mountain God will appear" (Genesis
22:14), "here is his bestead, an iron bedstead, then you will recognize the
truth.” (Deuteronomy I:2). If Spinoza quotes the words of R. Ibn Ezra in full,
he also specifies what R. Ibn Ezra never said explicitly: "With these few
words, he indicates and at the same time establishes, that it was not Moses
who wrote the Pentateuch but someone else who lived much later; and finally

Cambridge University Press, 2014: 59-60

3 Yirmiahu Yovel, Spinoza and other heretics. Princeton University Press, 1989, 92
4 Spinoza, Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, VIII, 3, 326-327
5 Luba R. Charlap, Abraham Ibn-Ezra's viewpoint regarding the Hebrew language and the

biblical text in the context of medieval environment. Folia linguistica histórica. 26, 1-2, 2005,
1-12. Cf. Jacques J. Rozenberg, The Spinozist Conception of Prophecy versus the Jewish
Traditional Commentaries. Philosophy & Theology. 35, 1, 2024.77-110.

38
Hermeneia - Nr. 33/2024 Jacques J. Rozenberg

that the book written by Moses was another work" (His autem paucis indicat
simulque ostendit non fuisse Mosen, qui Pentateuchon scripsit, sed alium quempiam, qui
longe post vixit, et denique quem Moses scripsit librum, alium fuisse).6 It should be
noted that Spinoza used the commentary of R. Ibn Ezra published by
Johannes Buxtorf I.7 However, this text does not mention all the versions of
the commentary, unlike the Miqr'aot Gedolot, a work that Spinoza did not
own, but that he certainly knew. Indeed, this work points out, in
parentheses, on the verse of Deuteronomy 1:2, next to the word "shnaym"
(two), that of "sarym" (princes), and Spinoza in fact took up this version
because Buxtorf's version, mentioning "ten princes" (ha-sarym 'eser) that did
not seem comprehensible to him.8 However, if we retain the version not
retained by Spinoza, instead of speaking of the last twelve verses of the
Pentateuch as Spinoza would eventually admit, we can understand, as Michael
Friedlander proposes, that in fact R. Ibn Ezra refers to the sacrifices of the
twelve princes or chiefs (nesy'im) mentioned in the verses of Numbers 7 : 12-
83. He would then express his astonishment at the repetition, twelve times
and without the slightest variation, of the sacrifices that the princes have
brought at the time of the inauguration of the Tabernacle. As a result, R.
Ibn Ezra would then not refer to the last twelve verses of Deuteronomy.9
Also according to Friedlander, the expression commonly used by R. Ibn
Ezra: "it involves a mystery (or a secret)" (yesh lo sod), and underlined by
Spinoza, never expresses any critical research concerning the coherence of a
biblical text or the authenticity of one of its authors, but it refers to a
philosophical aspect that R. Ibn Ezra thinks he has identified in certain
passages of the Bible.10 The notion of mystery or secret (sod) refers to
notions or situations whose true meanings are not always understood by
people. From a textual point of view, it simply connotes the different
significations that can be deduced from certain verses of the Bible.11 This
remark helps to understand why R. Ibn Ezra criticized Christian biblical
hermeneutics for constantly inventing "deep meaning" (sod).12

6 Spinoza, TTP, VIII, 3, 326-327

7 Lagré and Moreau, French translation of the Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, 749, note 68.
8 Johannes Buxtorf, Biblia Sacra Hebraica & Chaldaica Masora. L. König, 1618-1619, 191. The

version in Gerhardt's Edition (III, 119), which presents the Hebrew expression "hashlym
'eser" is also defective.
9 Michael Friedlander, Essays on the writing of Ibn Ezra. London, The Society of Hebrew

Literature, 1877, 65
10 Friedlander, Essays on the writing of Ibn Ezra, 62-65
11 H. Norman Strickman, Abraham ibn Ezra's "Yesod Mora." Ḥakirah. 12, 2011, 140
12 Mordechai Z. Cohen, Three Approaches to Biblical Metaphor: From Abraham Ibn Ezra and

Maimonides to David Kimhi. Brill, 2003, 36

39
Spinoza and his Relationship to the Hermeneutics of R. Abraham Ibn Ezra

The six critical statements of R. Abraham Ibn Ezra according to Spinoza

In suport of his thesis, Spinoza attributes six statements to R. Ibn

R. Ibn Ezra13:
1. The first verses of Deuteronomy, mentioned above, could not have
been written by Moses who did not cross the Jordan (Mose, qui Jordanem non
transivit, scribi non potuit). However, R. Ibn Ezra limits himself to remarking
that these first verses were pronounced in the desert (bamidbar), in the plain
(be'aravah) of the Jordan, without suggesting that Moses was not the author
of them. And R. Yoseph ben 'Ely'ezer 'Alam ha-Sfarady (1335-1388)
specifies that according to R. Ibn Ezra, only the last twelve verses of
Deuteronomy were written by Joshua.14 This author composed, in Jerusalem
three years before his death, a super-commentary entitled Tsafnat Pa‘eneah.
Even though the work was not published until 1722 in Amsterdam, it seems
likely that Spinoza read a copy of the manuscript of this work.15
2. Spinoza remarks that "the entire book of Moses was transcribed on
the sole edge of a single altar (cf. Deuteronomy 27: 2-3, and Joshua 8:31, etc.),
which, according to the rabbis' account, consisted of only twelve stones;
from which it appears that the book of Moses was much less extensive than
the Pentateuch." (quod totus liber Mosis descriptus fuerit admodum diserte in solo
ambitu unius arae (vide Deuter. Cap. 27. & Josuae, Cap. 8. v. 31. etc.), quae ex
Rabinorum relatione duodecim tantum lapidibus constabat; ex quo sequitur librum
Mosis longè minoris fuisse molis, quam Pentateuchon). However, R. Ibn Ezra, on
the verses of Deuteronomy 27:1-2, does not mention the question of the
completeness of the Pentateuch, nor the installation of twelve stones, but he
limits himself to pointing out that in order to respect all the commandments
(shmor ’et kol ha-miçwot) it was necessary to establish some large stones
('avanym gedolot) capable of encompassing the content of the Torah. He also
reports R. Saadya Gaon's explanation of this verse, to which he subscribes,
notifying that it was by no means the whole of the Pentateuch, but only a few
commandments (mispar miçwot), such as the warnings (hazharot). Spinoza
then attributes to R. Ibn Ezra the thesis that has been described as
"curious," according to which the expression "mystery of the twelve"

13 Spinoza, TTP, VIII, 3, 326-333; Raphael Jospe, Jewish philosophy in the Middle Ages.
Academic Studies Press, 2009, 184-188
14 R. Yoseph 'Alam ha-Sfarady, Tsafnat Pa‘eneah. Reedition. Krakow, 1912, Vol. I, 63.
15 The work of R. Yoseph Tov ben 'Eliezer 'Alam ha-Sfaradi was published in 1722 in

Amsterdam, under the title 'Ohel Yoseph, and included the work of R. Yequty'el Lazy
'Ashekenazy (Ed.), Sefer Margalyot Tovah. Amsterdam, 1722. It should be noted that the
original title of the manuscript does not appear in the catalogue of the Eç Hayym Library in
Amsterdam. However, there is mention of a manuscript with the same title by R. Shem
Tov Shafrut who also comments on R. Abaham Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch.
Cf. R. Shabtaye ben Yoseph Bass, Siftey Yeshanym. Amsterdam, 1680, 65.

40
Hermeneia - Nr. 33/2024 Jacques J. Rozenberg

(mysterium duodecim) refers to the twelve stones, which R. Ibn Ezra does not
mention at all in his commentary on Deuteronomy 27:1-2.16
3. Spinoza writes that R. Ibn Ezra "remarks that it is said
(Deuteronomy 31:9): And Moses wrote the Law-terms which cannot be of
Moses, but are of another writer who records the acts and writings of
Moses (dici in Deuter. cap. 31. v. 9. et scripsit Moses legem; quae quidem verba non
possunt esse Mosis, sed alterius scriptoris, Mosis facta et scripta narrantis). Now, in his
commentary on Deuteronomy 31:9, R. Ibn Ezra limits himself to specifying
two things: first, that the Levites are the teachers of the Torah (morey ha-
Torah), and second, that the expression "Elders of Israel" refers to the
members of the Sanhedryn (legislative and judicial assembly). He does not
make the slightest allusion to the fact that this verse could not have been
written by Moses.
4. Spinoza emphasizes the remark of R. Ibn Ezra on the verse of
Genesis 12: 6 "the Canaanite was then in the land," clearly ruling out that this
was still the case at the time this verse was written. This is what R. Ibn Ezra,
in his note on this passage, is indicating in the words: “and the Canaanite
was then in that land; it seems that Canaan (a grandson of Noah) took the
land of the Canaanite which was in the hands of another; if this is not true,
there is a mystery in this thing, and who understands it should be silent (yesh
lo sod we-ha-maskyl ydom).” That is, if Canaan invaded those regions, then the
sense will be that 'the Canaanite was already in that land at that time' as
distinct from a previous period when it was inhabited by another people.
But if Canaan was the first to cultivate those regions (as follows from
Genesis Ch. 10), then the text excludes the present time, i.e. the time of the
writer, which is not therefore the time of Moses, because in his time they
still possessed that territory. This is the mystery about which Ibn Ezra
recommends silence.17 Spinoza's conclusion that Moses could not have been
the writer of this verse, and that "this is the mystery (which Ibn Ezra)
recommends keeping quiet." (hoc est mysterium, quod tacendum commendat)
seems to be in accordance with the super-commentary of R. Yoseph ben
'Ely'ezer 'Alam ha-Sfarady. However, the latter emphasizes that, in the event
that the Canaanite had not conquered his land from another people, the

16 Warren Zev Harvey, Spinoza on Ibn Ezra's "secret of the twelve." In Yitzhak Y.
Melamed, Michael A. Rosenthal (Eds). Spinoza's Theological-Political Treatrise. A Critical
Guide. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2010, 51. Harvey, (54), reminds us that
Spinoza may have been influenced by his reading of Leviathan, where Hobbes speaks of the
twelve stones, pointing out, however, against Spinoza's assertion, that on these stones the
entire Pentateuch was not reproduced. Hobbes, Leviathan. John C. A. Gaskin (Ed.). Oxford,
New York, Oxford University Press, 1998, 254 and 345.
17 Spinoza, TTP VIII, 4. I use here the English translation of the Theological-Political Treatise

by Jonathan Israel, Michael Silverthorne. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2007,

120.

41
Spinoza and his Relationship to the Hermeneutics of R. Abraham Ibn Ezra

possible late writing of this verse would have been prophetic, and he adds:
"It does not matter whether it was Moses who wrote it or whether another
prophet wrote it (mah ly shekatvo Mosheh 'o shekatvo navy' 'aher) since their
words are equally true, and they proceed from prophecy (ho'yl we-divrey
kulam 'emet we-hem benevu'ah)."18
As Spinoza would do, Hobbes, who seems to have had indirect
access to R. Ibn Ezra's super-commentaries,19 also rejected the prophetic
aspect of R. Yoseph ben 'Ely'ezer 'Alam ha-Sfarady's remark. He first
emphasized, with regard to the words attributed to Moses, describing his
own death: "For it were a strange interpretation, to say Moses spoke of his
own sepulcher (though by prophecy)," and then denied the authorship of
Moses on the verse of Genesis 12:6: "and the Canaanite was then in the land;
which must needs to be the words of one that wrote when the Canaanite
was not in the land; and consequently, not of Moses, who died before he
came into it."20 However, as R. Yehuda Mosqony (approximately between
1327-1375) has pointed out, the majority of commentators on R. Ibn Ezra
have gone misguided (nevuku) in trying to account for the author's real
intention.21 Indeed, the term then ('az), can denote both a past or present
event. In this sense, on the verse of Genesis 12:6, R. Ibn Ezra has only
presented two possibilities of interpretation, one in the past and the other in
the present. As R. Shmuel Tsarçah (second half of the 14th century) points
out in his super-commentary Meqor Hayym, according to the first
interpretive possibility, the term "'az" means that the Canaanite was not
originally on his land, and in this case the verse does not imply any mystery.
According to the second possibility, it was at the time of the writing of the
verse that the Canaanite was no longer on his land, and there would then be
a mystery because it would imply that Moses did not write it.22 Nevertheless,
18 R. Yoseph 'Alam ha-Sfarady, Tsafnat Pa„eneah. I, 91-92. The author refers to the Talmud
Sanhedryn 99a, which qualifies as a heretic anyone who, while admitting that the entire
Torah is of Divine origin except for a verse that would have been added by Moses. As I
will explain later, according to R. Ibn Ezra, the prohibition of making any addition to the
Biblical text concerns only the commandments and not the narrations. However, the
Midrash Rabah Mishley noted that, in the verse of Proverbs 25:1, the term "he'etyqu" does
not mean to copy, even less write, but indicates that Hezekiah's servants only "explained"
(pershu) the Proverbs.
19 Noel Malcolm, Aspects of Hobbes. Oxford, New York, Oxford University Press, 2002, 404-

405. This author has emphasized the role of the Hebraist bishop, Alonso Tostado
(Alphonsus Tostatus) (1410-1455) in the dissemination of the writings of R. Ibn Ezra
among the Christian exegetes.
20 Hobbes, Leviathan, 33, 253
21 R. Yehuda Mosqony, 'Even ha-'Ezer, Hayym Kreisel (Ed.), Ben Gurion University,

Makon Bialik, 2021, I, 117

22 R. Shmuel Tsarçah, Meqor Hayym. In R. Yequty'el Lazy 'Ashekenazy (Ed.), Sefer margalyot

tovah. Amsterdam, 1722, 19a. Similarly, R. Mosheh ben Yehuda min ha-Na'arym (14th
century) adheres to the first interpretation. In 'Ofer 'Ely'or, R. Mosheh ben Yehuda min ha-

42
Hermeneia - Nr. 33/2024 Jacques J. Rozenberg

R. Ibn Ezra only mentions this interpretive possibility, without however

adhering to it. As R. Yoseph Caspi (1280-1345) points out, R. Ibn Ezra
even rejects this second interpretation.
Indeed, when God decreed that Abraham would inherit the land of
Canaan, Abraham then found that this land was dominated by Canaan, and
he feared that God then gave up all power over this land, and so he might
not inherit it. However, according to R. Yehuda Mosqony, the verse in
Genesis 12:6 emphasizes the strength of God's promise concerning the
inheritance of the land of Canaan, which was to take effect only when
Abraham's descendants were sufficiently numerous.23 This is why R. Ibn
Ezra hypothesizes that it is possible that Canaan had previously conquered
it from another people, which then left Abraham with hope of inheriting it,
as Canaan had done previously. Otherwise, there would be a mystery,
leaving Abraham's hope of inheriting this territory in vain, leading him to
think that Divine Providence had abandoned the earthly world.24 Even if
the identity of the author of the Perush ha-sodot le-R. Ibn Ezra has been the
subject of debate, and the authorship of R. Yoseph Caspi has been
questioned,25 it is worth recalling the remark of R. Yoseph Caspi, in his
work Parashat ha-Kesef, concerning the verse of Genesis 12:6: "And the
Canaanite was then on the earth." He then indicates that it was Moses who
wrote it, thus emphasizing that for R. Ibn Ezra, Moses was indeed the
author of this verse.26 This is in fact what R. Ibn Ezra himself confirms in
his Introduction to his commentary on the Psalms: "for there is no doubt
among the Israelites that Moses our Master wrote the book of Genesis" (ky
'eyn safeq beyn ha-Isra'elym ky sefer Ber'eshyt ky Mosheh 'Adonenu katvu).27 Thus we
can understand that the possible mystery concerning the verse of Genesis
12:6 does not concern its non-Mosaic redaction.28

Na'arym. By'yur 'al ha-Torah me' and R. 'Abraham 'Eben 'Ezr'a. Beer Sheba, Ben Gurion
University, 2015, 39.
23 R. Yehuda Mosqony, 'Even ha-'Ezer. H. Kreisel (Ed.), I, 118
24 R. Yoseph Caspi, Perush ha-sodot le-R. Ibn Ezra. Pressburg, 1903, 152.
25 Cf. Hannah Kosher, Lash'elat mehabero shel "By'yur ha-sodot le-R. ' Eben 'Ezr'a" ha-

meyuhas le-Yosef 'Eben Kaspy. In Mosheh Hallamish (Ed.), 'Aley Shefer. Ramat Gan, Bar-
Ilan University, 1990, 108-189.
26 R. Yoseph Caspi, Parashat ha-Kesef. In Hayym Kreisel (Ed.), Hamishah qadmoney mefarshey

R. Abraham ’Eben 'Ezr'a. 124. It should be noted that the editors of this work have
nevertheless indicated in parentheses: "it must be said (çaryk l’omar): and Moses did not
write (l’o katav)". However, the passage from the By'ur ha-sodot, and especially the
statement of R. Ibn Ezra himself, in his commentary on the Tehilym that we are reporting,
invalidates such a correction.
27 R. Ibn Ezra, Perush 'al Tehilym, Aqdamah
28 This is why the commentator of the Awat Nefesh maintains the Mosaic origin of the

entire Pentateuch. In Hayym Kreisel (Ed.), Hamishah qadmoney mefarshey R. Abraham ’Eben
‘Ezr’a. 37 and 124-125. The author of the Awat Nefesh is still uncertain. Cf. William G.
Gärtig, The attribution of the Ibn Ezra supercommentary "Avvat Nefesh" to Asher ben

43
Spinoza and his Relationship to the Hermeneutics of R. Abraham Ibn Ezra

5. Spinoza then notes that in the verse of Genesis 22:14, Mount

Moriah is called "the mountain of God," whereas this place will in fact be
identified as such only after the building of the Temple by Solomon, several
centuries after Moses. Spinoza specifies that the name Moriah was given by
the "historian" (nempe ab historico), and not by Abraham himself, as is
mentioned in II Chronicles 3: 2, describing the construction of the First
Temple by Solomon.29 In fact, Moses did not specify on which mountain
the Temple will be built, but he only noted: "The place that the
Tetragrammaton will choose" to build it (Deuteronomy 12:11). Moses did not
know the location, which would not be revealed until the time of King
David. According to Spinoza, this would clearly prove that Moses was not
the author of this verse. Moreover, the term "today" (ha-yom) must refer to
the time of the Temple when it was possible to practice the three Pilgrimage
festivals. Although R. Ibn Ezra also includes this verse in the "secret of the
twelve," he does not mention the name Moriah. Following the Midrash Syfry,
commentators emphasize that the expression "on the mountain where the
Tetragrammaton will be seen" (behar Ha-Shem Yr'aeh), refers to the prophetic
vision of the future Temple that God transmitted to Abraham.30 Spinoza,
denying the possibility of prophecy, could not accept such an exegesis, and
he therefore preferred to note a disqualifying anachronism for the claim that
Moses was the author of this verse. It should be noted that the name
Moriah, contrary to what Spinoza suggests, does not appear in the verse of
Genesis 22:14, to which he refers. This name is however indicated in the
super-commentary of R. Yoseph ben 'Ely'ezer 'Alam ha- ha-Sfarady, to
suggest that this verse may have been written by later prophets and
therefore also by prophecy.31 It is worth mentioning that this name being
mentioned later in II Chronicles III: 2 does not contradict Abraham's
prophecy concerning the future construction of the First Temple.
6. Spinoza then points out problems of a narrative nature. The verse
of Deuteronomy III, 11 interpolates certain information in the account
relating to 'Og, king of Bashan: "the only survivor among the Ref'aym
(giants), 'Og, king of Bashan, and this is his bed, it was a bed of iron, for
this bed is in Rabat among the sons of Ammon and is nine cubits long and
four cubits wide according to the measurements of man." According to
Spinoza, such a parenthesis (parenthesis) proves that it was placed by an
author much later than Moses, since he himself did not enter the territory of

Abraham Crescas reconsidered, Hebrew Union College Annual. 66, 1995, 239-257.
29 Spinoza, TTP, Annotation 9, 662-663
30 Syfry Devarym 352; cf. Rashi and Rashbam on Genesis 22:14, Qely Yaqar on Exodus, 34:23.
31 R. Yoseph ben Eliezer 'Alam ha-Sfarady, Tsafnat Pa‘eneah. 112. The Talmud asks a similar

question regarding the verse of Genesis 2:14, which states that the third tributary of the
Edenic River is Hydeqel, which flows east of Ashur. Rav Yoseph specifies that 'Ashur is
located in Slyqa, which in fact designates the future name of this place. Qetubot 10b.

44
Hermeneia - Nr. 33/2024 Jacques J. Rozenberg

Ammon and therefore could not have known the dimensions of this iron
bed. This was not found until the time of David, who subdued the city of
Rabat, as we can read in II Samuel 12: 30. This interpretation seems to have
been suggested by R. Yoseph ben 'Ely'ezer, who said that it was only when
Yoav entered Rabat, under David's command, that he was then able to
ascertain the dimensions of this bed.32. However, it should be noted that
this passage from the book of Samuel, reported by Spinoza as proof of late
information, makes no mention of the bed of 'Og but only of the crown of
the king of the Ammonites which David seized. It is possible that Spinoza
confused the anecdotes here, after reading the commentary of Rashbam, a
contemporary of R. Ibn Ezra, specifying that the people of Ammon, having
become aware of the divine prohibition against the Children of Israel to
harm their territory and their property. They therefore placed the bed of Og
in their capital Rabat. Rashbam adds that this city was then a royal city, as is
reported precisely in the passage from the book of Samuel to which Spinoza
refers.33 In fact, as R. Yoseph ben 'Elyezer himself points out, the
information that Moses could not obtain naturally was provided to him by
prophecy.34
It should be noted that R. Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch
had been written largely against the Karaites, whose rejection of the Oral
Law had led to subjective, and therefore arbitrary, interpretations of the
Bible.35 R. Ibn Ezra, while maintaining that all the commandments require
explanation by means of transmission (midivrey qabalah),36 at the same time
gave fundamental importance to rational thought.37 Spinoza's project of

32 R. Yoseph ben Eliezer 'Alam ha-Sfarady, Tsafnat Pa‘eneah, 112

33 Rashbam on Deuteronomy III, 13
34 R. Yoseph 'Alam ha-Sfarady, Tsafnat Pa‘eneah, 112
35 R. Pinhas Weis, ‟Eben „Ezr‟a we-ha-Qar'aym be-Halakah. Melilah. I, 1944, 35-53. On the

relations of R. Ibn Ezra to the Karaites, cf. Daniel Frank, Ibn Ezra and the Karaite
Exegetes Aaron ben Joseph and Aaron ben Elijah, in Fernando Dıaz Esteban et al. (Eds.),
Abraham Ibn Ezra y su Tiempo. Madrid: Associación Espanola de Orientalistas, 1990, 99–
107. However, it has been possible to emphasize the ambiguous position of R. Ibn Ezra in
relation to the biblical Karaite hermeneutics, combining both an attitude of rejection and
agreement with some of their interpretations. R. Menahem M. Kasher (1875-1983) has
suggested that the passages marking R. Ibn Ezra's agreement with the Karaites were late
additions by the copyists of his manuscripts. R. Menahem M. Kasher, Torah Shlemah. VIII,
Jerusalem, Beyt Torah Shlemah, 1992, 254-255. However, Raphael Itshaq (Zinger) Zer has
challenged this thesis of the late addition, showing the agreement of R. Ibn Ezra with some
Karaite commentators. Raphael Itshaq Zer, Raby Abraham ‟Eben 'Ezr'a we-parshanut ha-
Miqr'a ha-Qar'ayt. Megadim, 2000, 32, 100.
36 R. Abraham Ibn Ezra, Yoseph Cohen, Uriel Simon (Eds), Yesod Mor'a we-sod Torah.

Ramat Gan, Bar Ilan University, Second Edition, 2007, 70

37 Yoseph Cohen, Hagut ha-fylosofyt shel R. ’Eben ‘Ezr’a. Ramleh, Shay, 1996, 121-139; David

Lemler, Abraham ibn Ezra et Moïse Maïmonide cités par Spinoza ou l'impossibilité d'une
philosophie juive. Revue des Etudes Juives. 168, 3-4, 2009, 460 461.

45
Spinoza and his Relationship to the Hermeneutics of R. Abraham Ibn Ezra

reducing the biblical text to a purely human editorial text was based on the
particular use he made of the writings of R. Ibn Ezra. This project played a
fundamental role in the development of deistic thought and the beginnings
of Biblical Criticism.38
To account for the obscurities of R. Ibn Ezra's commentaries, it is
necessary to take into account the possibility, evoked by certain super-
commentaries such as R. 'Ele'azar ben Matityah, regarding a corruption of
R. Ibn Ezra's texts, as well as attempts at some textual emendation.39
Michael Friedlander reports the Introduction to the work Beyt ha-'azer,
where R. Benjamin Espinoza (eighteenth century) "regrets that attacks were
made on Ibn Ezra. He quotes the correspondence between R. Raphael
Ashkenazi and R. Gamaliel Monsilos and the letter of R. Gad dil Aquila to
R. Abiad, adding that he heard of R. Chananyah Kazis in the name of
Tachkemoni, that many of the impugned passages in Ibn Ezra's writings
were added by Ibn Ezra's son, who had become a Mahomedan."40

The verses quoted by Spinoza to demonstrate that Moses was not the author of
the Pentateuch

According to Spinoza, R. Ibn Ezra did not mention "neither the

totality nor the most important" (nec omnia, nec praecipua) editorial problems
that can be identified in the Pentateuch. Thereby, the text of Deuteronomy III
contains other interpolations. For example, in verses III, 13-14, the post-
mosaic historian would have added this explanation to Moses' words: "Jair
the son of Manasseh took all the country of Argob unto the coasts of
Geshuri and Maachathi; and called them after his own name, Bashan-
havoth-Jair, unto this day.” For Spinoza, these clarifications provide
information that will only be available later, as reported in the verse of I
Chronicles II, 21-22, thus clearly proving that this information was provided
by a historian, who later explained Moses' words. This historian, knowing
both the names of the countries that were then common in the time of
Moses, as well as their late names, was thus able to make correspondences
between the different periods. Now, if it is true that the Chronicles constitute
a true book of history,41 it can in no way be deduced from this book that

38 Irene Lancaster, Deconstructing the Bible. Abraham Ibn Ezra's Introduction to the Torah.
London, Routledge, 2003, 25
39 Hayym Kreisel (Ed.), Hamishah qadmoney mefarshey R. Abraham ’Eben ‘Ezr’a, 42, note 31

and 48, note 47. Tamas Visi quotes another commentator, apparently anonymous, who
also supports the thesis of the corruption of the original texts of R. Ibn Ezra. Tamas Visi,
The Early Ibn Ezra Supercommentaries: A Chapter in Medieval Jewish Intellectual History. Ph.D.
dissertation. Budapest, 2006, 56, note 132.
40 Michael Friedlander, Essays on the writing of Ibn Ezra, 248
41 Cf. Itshaq Klymy, Sefer Divrey Ha-yamym. Ktyvah hystoryt we-'emça‘ym syfrutyym. Jerusalem, M.

46
Hermeneia - Nr. 33/2024 Jacques J. Rozenberg

their author, who, according to the Talmud, is precisely Ezra,42 also wrote
these verses of Deuteronomy III, 13-14. The Radaq (R. David Qimhy, 1160-
1235) emphasizes that this account of the Chronicles only specifies the
genealogy of Jair which is mentioned in Deuteronomy.43 The translators of the
TTP have noted that these last remarks, which Spinoza refers to R. Ibn
Ezra, do not concern R. Ibn Ezra, but take up a thesis developed by Isaac
La Peyrère (1596-1676), whose work Praeadamitae Spinoza owned.44
Spinoza then gives four examples of textual problems, which he
considered to be crucial to prove that Moses was not the author of the
Pentateuch:45
1. The books of Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers not only speak of
"Moses in the third person, but they also give many testimonies about him"
(Mose non tantum in tertia persona loquatur, sed quod insuper de eo multa testetur),
while in Deuteronomy "Moses speaks and relates his deeds in the first person"
(loquitur suaque facta narrat Moses in prima persona). For Spinoza, "All this - a
way of speaking, an external testimony, the very context of the whole of
history fully persuades us that these books were written not by Moses, but
by someone else” (Quae omnia, nempe modus loquendi, testimonia, et ipse totius
historiae contextus plane suadent hos libros ab alio, non ab ipso Mose fuisse conscriptos).
2. The end of Deuteronomy affirms that "No prophet, equal to Moses,
ever arose in Israel who knew God face to face." This comparison made
with all the other prophets who lived after him, cannot be of Moses himself,
for 'Moses ... could not give it himself, nor one of his immediate successors:
he is one who lived many centuries later (Quod sane testimonium non Moses ipsus
de se, nec alius, qui eum immediate secutus est, sed aliquis, qui multis post saeculis vixi).
Indeed, the affirmation of Deuteronomy involves a much later narrator who,
logically, lived at least at the time of the last three prophets of the beginning
of the Second Temple, who were precisely contemporaries of Ezra.
3. Some places are not called by the names that were not then in use
at the time of Moses, but they refer to later names. Thus, the text of Genesis
14:14 tells us that Abraham pursued his enemies as far as Dan, "whereas
that city did not receive that name until long after the death of Joshua" (haec
urbs non obtinuit, nisi longe post mortem Joshua), as recorded in the book of Judges
18:29.
4. The narratives sometimes relate to post-mosaic events. In this
way, the verse of Exodus 16:35 tells us that the Children of Israel ate manna

Bialik, 2000
42 Bab'a Batr'a 15a, cf. Nahmanides, Sefer Ha-G'eulah. Kitvey Ha-Ramban, Jerusalem, M. ha-

Rav Kook, II, 272.

43 Radaq on Chronicles I, II, 22
44 Jacqueline Lagrée, Pierre-François Moreau, TTP Translators, 741, note 17. Cf. I. La

Peyrère, Præadamitæ. Amsterdam, Louis & Daniel Elzevier, 1655, 186-187.

45 Spinoza, TTP, VIII, 4, 332-335

47
Spinoza and his Relationship to the Hermeneutics of R. Abraham Ibn Ezra

for forty years, until they arrived in the territories that were then inhabited
by Canaan. As this location is described in the book of Joshua 5:12, it was
therefore not available in Moses' day. Spinoza points out the same difficulty
regarding the verse of Genesis 36:31, "And these are the kings that reigned in
the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the Children of
Israel." "Undoubtedly, the historian here relates that the Idumeans had
kings before David subdued them and established garrisons in Idumea"
(Narrat sine dubio ibi historicus, quos reges Idumaei habuerint, antequam David eos
subegit et praesides in ipsa Idumaea constituit). Now, since these are the Idumean
kings whom David defeated, as it is related in II Samuel, 8:14, and therefore
Moses could not have been the author of this verse.
From the exposition of these textual difficulties, Spinoza concludes
that the entire Pentateuch was not written by Moses, but by another author
much later. It should be noted that the four arguments are not
homogeneous: the first two are narrative, while the last note an editorial
anachronism.
Concerning the first two examples, let us remember that Spinoza
took from R. Ibn Ezra his method of contextual hermeneutics.46 Apparently
based on the super-commentary Tsafnat Pa‘eneah, he pointed out a
distinction between what Frege would call direct speech and reported
speech.47 Wishing to prove that the biblical narrator was not always Moses,
Spinoza goes far beyond this distinction of narratological order, but he slips
without transition from the question of the narrator to that of the biblical
author, then to that of the Divine Speaker, and he ends up concluding that
the biblical text cannot be of divine origin. Now, this conclusion proceeds
from the fact that he sees a contradiction between the extensional
procedures of Moses' direct discourse in Deuteronomy, as oratio recta, and the
intensional procedures of the reported discourse as oratio obliqua, presented
by Moses in the second, third, and fourth books of the Pentateuch. I will
return later on the importance of this semantic distinction.
The third difficult example noted by Spinoza concerns the
anachronism of the evocation of toponyms such as that of Dan. Let us
recall that the Talmud Sanhedryn 96a had already considered this question,
and it had then specified that Dan is mentioned because Abraham received
a prophetic vision there, indicating to him that his descendants would
practice idolatry there, as it is related in the book of I Kings 12:29. On the

46 Amos Funkenstein, Comment on Richard Popkin's Paper. In The Books of Nature and
Scripture. International Archives of the History of Ideas. 139, 1994, 21
47 Gottlob Frege, On sense and reference. English translation, reprinted in Adrian W.

Moore (Ed.) Meaning and Reference. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1993, 23-42; Paula
Gherasin, Expression linguistique de la subjectivité dans le discours et le discours rapporté.
Cahiers de Linguistique Française. 25, 2003, 208.

48
Hermeneia - Nr. 33/2024 Jacques J. Rozenberg

other hand, another version of R. Ibn Ezra states that in this verse the term
Dan refers to a different place ('eyn zu shem Dan ha-yadu'a 'el'a 'aheret) than
the one that will be known and mentioned in the time of the Kings, while the
standard edition of R. Ibn Ezra does not comment on this problem of
anachronism at all.48
The fourth difficult example, which does not refer to the verse of
Exodus 16:34, to which Spinoza mistakenly refers, but to the next verse,
apparently concerns the post-Mosaic period during which the Children of
Israel, having arrived at the border of the territory of Canaan, then ceased
to eat manna. According to commentators, this verse prophetically
describes the history of this meta-natural food that was available for forty
years. As Rashi ad locum explains, the manna stopped falling on the day of
Moses' death, so he had still witnessed this last miracle, which occurred on
the 7th of the month of Adar. However, its abundance was such that it was
sufficient for the subsistence of the People for more than five weeks, until
the 16th of the month of Nysan.
As for the question of the kings of Edom who reigned before there
was a king in Israel (Genesis, 36: 31), mention should be made of the
diatribes of R. Ibn Ezra against a certain Itshaqy who suggested, in a pre-
spinozist style, that this verse was written only in the time of Jehoshafat. R.
Ibn Ezra then specified that his book "deserves to be burned" (r'auy
lehisaref).49 He emphasizes that the first king in Israel was Moses, because, as
Nahmanides (R. Mosheh ben Nahman, 1194-1270) noted, the Idumean
kings had ceased to reign in his time, without there being any need to place
them in the distant future.50 As a result, R. Ibn Ezra would certainly have
disavowed Spinoza's use of his writings, as well as Spinoza's reduction of

48 Cf. Gershon Brin, She'elot hybur we-'arykah be-Miqr'a beperusho shel R.Abraham 'Eben
'Ezr'a. Te'udah, VIII, 1992, 127. Regarding his remark on the toponym Dan, Spinoza may
have been influenced by the comment of R. Shim„on ben Tsemah Duran, who
hypothesized a late interpolation. Cf. Abraham Joshua Heshel, Torah min ha-Shamaym
beaspeqlari’a shel ha-dorot. London, New York, Soncino Press, 1965, 393
49 Various opinions have been expressed regarding the identity of this author. The Tsafnat

Pa‘eneah, 11 thinks that this is R. Ytshaq ben Yeshush. On the contrary, R. Yaacov Rifman
emphasizes that it must be a surname and not a first name, Toldot 'Avi Mishpahat Rapaport.
Vienna, 1872, 13. Uriel Simon, after having reported several theses, leans towards R. Jonah
Ibn Janah, Who was the Proponent of Lexical Substitution Whom Ibn Ezra Denounced as
a Prater and a Madman? In The Frank Talmage Memorial Volume, Barry Walfish (Ed.) Vol.1,
Haifa, Haifa University Press, 1993, 217-232. It should also be noted that according to the
Tsafnat Pa‘eneah, 31, R. Ibn Ezra's criticism of Itshaqy cannot be applied to his own
commentaries since Itshaqy's remark concerns an entire section, "parashah shlemah," while
R. Ibn Ezra's remarks do not refer to verses which, even if moved, do not change their
meaning. Uriel Simon emphasizes the difficulties of such a distinction, 'Ozen Mylyn
Tivhan. Mehqarym bedarko ha-parshanyt shel R. Abraham ’Eben ‘Ezr’a. Ramat Gan, Bar-Ilan
University, 2013, 293-294.
50 R. Ibn Ezra and Nahmanides on Genesis 36: 31. Midrash Rabah, B'ereshyt, XLIII.

49
Spinoza and his Relationship to the Hermeneutics of R. Abraham Ibn Ezra

the Biblical text to a purely human editorial history. Nevertheless, the

Spinozist interpretation of the writings of R. Ibn Ezra played a crucial role
in the development of deistic thought as well as in the elaboration of the
foundations of biblical criticism.51

Spinoza and the Hermeneutics of R. Abraham Ibn Ezra

R. Ibn Ezra's interpretations are often non-literal,52 and the

ambiguities they entail have strongly influenced Spinoza's critical reading of
the Pentateuch, apparently based on several super-commentaries that Spinoza
seems to have consulted. However, in 1671, one year after the publication
of the TTP, Johannes Melchior (1646-1689) sought to refute, apparently
based on some super-commentaries of R. Ibn Ezra, the six theses that
Spinoza attributed to him.53 And in 1678, a year after Spinoza's death,
Richard Simon (1638-1712), while postulating that parts of the Pentateuch
were written after Moses, and in particular by Ezra, has also criticized
Spinoza's use of R. Ibn Ezra's commentary. He pointed out that the
Spinozist interpretation of this commentary "only proves that some
additions have been inferred to the ancient acts, which cannot be denied to
be by Moses, or at least to have been written in his time and by his order...
he is manifestly mistaken, in that he believed that passages in Deuteronomy
and the book of Joshua ... mentions the whole Law of Moses."54 Similarly,
two years after Spinoza's death, his interpretation of R. Ibn Ezra was
challenged point by point by Pierre Daniel Huet. He also criticized the
approaches of Isaac Lapeyrère and Thomas Hobbes questioning the
authorship of Moses on certain biblical passages, as well as Elias Levitas on
the late character of Hebrew vowels.55 For R. Solomon Zalman Netter
(1801-1879), all the verses whose Mosaic authorship has been disputed on
the basis of certain commentaries of R. Ibn Ezra, were prophetically

51 Irene Lancaster, Deconstructing the Bible. Abraham Ibn Ezra's Introduction to the Torah. 25
52 H. Norman Strickman, Abraham ibn Ezra's Non-Literal Interpretations. Ḥakirah. 9,
2010, 281-296
53 J. Melchioris, Epistola ad amicum, continens censuram libri, cui titulus: Tractatus theologico-politicus.

Utrecht, Cornelius Noenaert, 1671, 35-36. On the importance of Spinoza‟s criticism by

Johannes Melchior and its repercussions on the Dutch Reformed theologians, cf. Albert
Gootjes, The First Orchestrated Attack on Spinoza: Johannes Melchioris and the Cartesian
Network in Utrecht. Journal of the History of Ideas. 79, 1, 2018, 23-43.
54 R. Simon, Histoire critique du Vieux Testament. Reproduction of the New Edition published

in Rotterdam in 1685. Frankfurt, Minerva, G.M.B.H. 1967, Preface, without pagination.

55 Pierre-Daniel Huet, Demonstratio Evangelica. Paris, 1679, 141-142. Huet had met R.

Menasheh ben Israel in 1652 in Amsterdam. Cf. A. G. Shelford, Thinking Geometrically in

Pierre-Daniel Huet's "Demonstratio evangelica" (1679). Journal of the History of Ideas. 63, 4,
2002, 601.

50
Hermeneia - Nr. 33/2024 Jacques J. Rozenberg

enunciated. 56 And according to Michael Friedlander (1833-1910), R. Ibn

Ezra adheres entirely to the tradition, positing that Moses was indeed the
author of the Pentateuch.57
Spinoza's reading of R. Ibn Ezra has thus been described as highly
"ironic," insofar as the main concern of this author was first of all to unveil
the real harmony between the written law and the oral law, in order to
preserve the unity of the Jewish Tradition and to defend it against any kind
of historical or textual dispute.58 In this sense, the use of the oral Law as a
hermeneutical complement to the written Law remained fundamental for R.
Ibn Ezra, since he specifies that "the Oral Torah is the explanation of the
Written Torah" (Torah shebe-'al peh sheu' perush ha-Torah shebe-ktav).59 It aimed
first of all to develop a biblical hermeneutic capable of criticizing the
Christian and Karaite interpretations that similarly rejected the oral law.60
Now, Spinoza could not transgress the two principles they had laid for the
study of the Bible: first, "to treat only of what concerns Scripture alone"
(quae solam Scripturam spectant),61 that is, only of the written law; and second,
to reject all rabbinic commentary, since the "rabbis are completely
delusional" (Rabini namque plane delirant).62
It therefore seems completely paradoxical that Spinoza could rely on
the authority of R. Ibn Ezra in order to contest the traditional Mosaic
authorship of the Pentateuch, while R. Ibn Ezra did not cease to affirm his
fidelity to the rabbinic tradition. Recall that Spinoza quotes R. Ibn Ezra's
commentary on the verse of Esther 9:32, suggesting that this book has been
lost (we'avad ha-sefer), in order to prove that this book, as well as those of
Daniel, Ezra, and Nehemiah, were written by a "single historian" (uno eodemque
historico), and therefore that Mordecai could not have been the author.63
However, Spinoza fails to recall the Introduction of R. Ibn Ezra to the Book
of Esther, where he explicitly wrote: "It seems to me correct to affirm (nakon

56 R. Shlomo Zalman Netter, Perush 'al Ibn Ezra on Deuteronomy, 1: 2 and on Deuteronomy
34:1. In Hamyshah Humshey Torah, Wien, 1859. It should be noted that according to Gad
Freudenthal, this super-commentary by R. Ibn Ezra is not by R. Shlomo Zalman Netter,
but it was written by R. Abraham Nager. Gad Freudenthal, Abraham Nager's Super-
commentary on Abraham Ibn Ezra's Commentary on Leviticus and its Erroneous
Ascription to R. Salomon Netter (1859). Alei Sefer, 26/27, 2007, 265-276.
57 Michael Friedlander, Essays on the writing of Ibn Ezra, 65-66
58 Irene Lancaster, Deconstructing the Bible: Abraham ibn Ezra's Introduction to the Torah. 25
59 R. Ibn Ezra on Exodus 19:9
60 Nahum M. Sarna, Abraham Ibn Ezra as an exegete. In Isadore Twersky and Jay M.

Harris (Eds). Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra: Studies in the Writings of a Twelfth-Century Jewish
Polymath. Cambridge Mass., Harvard University Press, 1993, 5
61 Spinoza, TTP, I, 5, 82-83
62 Spinoza, TTP, IX, 11, 366-367
63 Spinoza, TTP, X, 10, 394-395; R. Ibn Ezra on Esther 9: 32

51
Spinoza and his Relationship to the Hermeneutics of R. Abraham Ibn Ezra

be'eynay) that this scroll was written by Mordecai."64 Similarly, Spinoza refers
to R. Ibn Ezra, suggesting that the verse in Genesis 35:2 reporting Jacob's
instructions to keep away foreign gods, implies that Jacob was previously a
polytheist. However, R. Ibn Ezra explicitly rejects such a hypothesis: “God
forbids” (halylah, halylah).65
It should be noted that if the interpretations of R. Ibn Ezra
sometimes differ from those of the Talmud, it is only in the case where the
Talmud puts forward ideas that do not proceed from Tradition itself, but
from personal opinions interpolated in the homelic narratives ('agadot).66
According to R. Ibn Ezra, these opinions can be criticized only on the
condition that the new interpretation does not contradict the rabbinic
legislation (halakah) which can never be questioned.67 Similarly, he
recognizes the importance of the Masoretes, described as "Guardians of the
Temple walls" (Shomrey Humot ha-Miqdash), who were able to preserve the
scriptural tradition.68
It should be noted that the hermeneutics of R. Ibn Ezra innovated
by introducing into his biblical commentary a considerable amount of
scientific elements. It refers to astrological (hokmat ha-mazalot), geometrical
(hokmat ha-midot), astronomical (toledet ha-shamayym), psychological (hokmat

64 R. Ibn Ezra, Introduction to the Commentary on Esther I, 1; David Lemler, Abraham

ibn Ezra et Moïse Maïmonide cités par Spinoza ou l'impossibilité d'une philosophie juive.
Revue des Etudes Juives. 168, 3-4, 2009, 439.
65 Spinoza, TTP; II, 14, 136-137; R. Abraham Ibn Ezra on Genesis 35:2 and on Deuteronomy

31:16, Waren Zev Harvey, Spinoza on Ibn Ezra's "secret of the twelve." 41, note 3.
66 On this point, it should be remembered that R. Shlomo Luria (1510-1573) sharply

criticized R. Ibn Ezra, pointing out that, not being himself a true Talmudist, he opposed
the Sages of the Mishnah and the Talmud, according to the criteria proper to his
understanding alone. The fact that his sometimes-disconnected understanding of tradition
may have strengthened the opinions of heretics, Sadducees, and those with some
weaknesses in religious matters (qaley e'munah). R. Shlomo Luria, Yam shel Shlomo, Maseket
Hulyn, Haqdamah R‟ishonah. Offenbach, 1718, 3. R. S. Luria's criticism was taken up by R.
Moshe Isserles (1520-1572). On the different perceptions of R. Ibn Ezra by the rabbinical
authorities, cf. R. Z. L„ahra„ar, Ha-‟Eben „Ezr‟a be-„eyney gedoley ha-dorot. Tsfonot. 3, 1989,
80-86. However, Maimonides spoke of R. Ibn Ezra in very complimentary terms. Thus, he
wrote to his son, R. Abraham, that R. Ibn Ezra, in his commentary on the Pentateuch, has
unveiled profound secrets that only those who are at his level are really able to understand.
Musar n'aeh me'od miHa-Rambam z'l. 'Iygrot Ha-Rambam. In Teshuvot Ha-Rambam we-
'Iygrotyav. Heleq Sheny, Leipzig 1859, 9. The thesis of R. Ibn Erza's opposition to the
rabbis of the Talmud has been nuanced by A. Cohen, Raby Abraham 'Eben 'Ezr'a : Ha-
'umnam benygud le-Hazal? Qulmus, 2005, 27, 87-97.
67 R. Ibn Ezra on Genesis XXII, 4; cf. H. Norman Strickman, Abraham Ibn Ezra's Non-

Literal Interpretations. Ḥakirah, 9, 2010, 281-282.

68 R. Ibn Ezra, Sefer Me'oznaym. Offenbach, 1791, 1. In his work Yesod Mor'a we-sod Torah, R.

Ibn Ezra uses the expression "guardians of the city walls" (shomrey humot ha-'Iyr). R. A. Ibn
Ezra, Y. Cohen, U. Simon (Eds), Yesod Mor'a we-sod Torah. 67.

52
Hermeneia - Nr. 33/2024 Jacques J. Rozenberg

ha-nefesh), rhetorical knowledge (hokmat ha-mivt'a),69 while resorting to

Aristotelian philosophy.70 Thus, the influence that R. Ibn Ezra may have
had on the sages of his generation in many areas71 actually contradicts the
cleavage posed by Spinoza between Reason and Revelation, because for the
author of the TTP : "Theology is not the handmaid of reason, nor reason
that of theology" (Nec theologiam rationi, nec rationem theologiae ancillari
ostenditur).72 At the same time, this recourse to external elements posited by
R. Ibn Ezra as necessary for biblical hermeneutics is in opposition to the
Spinozist principle of "scriptura sola,"73 requesting that we remain solely
reliant on Scripture.
R. Ibn Ezra's commentaries have raised serious questions among his
readers, especially those dealing with the last twelve verses of Deuteronomy
(34:1-34:12).74 Before him, the Talmud expressed two opinions concerning
the author of the last eight verses. The first states that this writing was
posthumous, and it was carried out by Joshua under divine dictation,75 while
the second opinion specifies that these verses were indeed written by
Moses, but with his "tears" (bedim'a), also under divine dictation.76 In this
sense, R. Shmuel Tsarçah specifies that R. Ibn Ezra, while recalling that
Joshua had written the last verses of the Pentateuch, in fact did not adhere to
this thesis ('eyno sover zeh), but that he really thought that these verses were
said to Moses by prophecy (ne'emru le-Mosheh bederek nevu'ah), who then
wrote them also by prophecy (katav benevu'ah).77 In any case, as R. Shmuel
Motot (late 14th century) points out, R. Ibn Ezra suggests that, in
accordance with the traditional reading, Moses addresses himself by

69 R. Ibn Ezra, Yoseph Cohen, Uriel Simon (Eds), Yesod Mor'a we-sod Torah. 80; Shlomo
Sela, Abraham Ibn Ezra and the Rise of Medieval Hebrew Science. Leiden, Brill, 2003, 257-258.
70 Mariano Gómez Aranda, Aristotelian Theories in Abraham ibn Ezra's Commentaries to

the Bible.Mediterranea: International Journal on the Transfer of Knowledge. 3, 2018, 35-54

71 R. Yehuda Masqony, Haqdamah le-'Eben ha-'Ezer. In A. Berliner, D. Hoffmann (Eds.),

'Oçar tov. Berlin, 1878, 3

72 Spinoza, TTP, XIV, 1, 482-483; J. Samuel Preus, Spinoza and the Irrelevance of Biblical

Authority. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2001, 4. Commentators have disagreed

on whether the TTP sought to expound a radically atheistic thesis or to develop an
unorthodox theology through dual teaching. For a summary of the various theses, see
Steven Frankel, Spinoza's dual teaching of Scripture: His Solution to the Quarrel between
Religion and. Revelation. Archiv für Geshichte der Philosophie. 84, 2002, 274-275.
73 Spinoza, TTP, I, 6, 81-82
74 Aaron Mondschein, "Yesh lo sod we-hamaskyl ydom": Misygnono ha-'enygmaty shel

Ha-Rav ‟Eben „Ezr‟a 'ad ha-'arakat 'iyshyuto. Shenaton leheqer ha-Miqr'a we-ha-Mizrah ha-
Qadum. XIV, 2004, 257-288; cf. Yehuda. L. Pel Ish'ar, Perushym leperush R. Abraham
‟Eben „Ezr‟a laMiqr'a. 'Oçar ha-Hayym, 10-11, 1935, 176-177.
75 Bab'a Batr'a 14b
76 Bab'a Batr'a 15a
77 R. Shmuel Tsarçah, Meqor Hayym. In R. Yequty'el Lazy 'Ashekenazy (ed.), Sefer Margalyot

Tovah, 134b

53
Spinoza and his Relationship to the Hermeneutics of R. Abraham Ibn Ezra

prophecy to future generations, without ever insinuating, as suggested by

the author of the Tsafnat Pa‘eneah (while noting that they were dictated by
prophecy), and Spinoza after him (but without mentioning such a
precision), that Moses was not the author of these verses.78
However, Yehuda Leib Krinsky (19th century) specifies that the
thesis of the late addition of these passages is based on a pure
misunderstanding of their literal meaning. To legitimize such a thesis, it
would first be necessary to understand the true intention of these authors to
make such additions, and then the purpose for which they undertook to
correct the text of the Pentateuch, thus considered to be originally
"defective." In spite of all the obscure allusions of R. Ibn Ezra, it is
impossible to postulate, as Spinoza does, that according to R. Ibn Ezra
thought Moses was not himself the author of the Pentateuch. He only
suggested that some verses were not transcribed by Moses, but never
claimed that they could not have a divine origin.79 In this sense, he did not
adopt the theory of an interpolation of verses, or even the possibility of a
late alteration, even if he attributes the writing of the last verses of the
Pentateuch to Joshua, under divine dictation.80 R. Ibn Ezra himself rejected
the hypothesis that some verses may have been written after the Mosaic
writing. As I mentioned earlier, in his commentary on Genesis 36:31, he
objects to the explanation of a certain Yishaqy who reported the writing of
the verse concerning the kings of Edom in the time of Jehoshaphat. It
should be remembered that the Sages of the Mishnah and the Talmud
mentioned several versions of the Pentateuch, with minimal differences,
despite all the precautions taken by the scribes regarding the transmission
and copying of manuscripts. They recalled that three versions of the Torah
had been found in the Court of the Second Temple and that the copies
were then amended according to the majority of versions, while in the Ark
of the First Temple was placed the scroll written by Moses himself, which
was free of any error.81 The secularist reasoning that Spinoza tried to find in
R. Ibn Ezra is in fact a circular reasoning. It can be summarized in the
following way: insofar as God is nature, there can be no other laws than the
natural laws, thus excluding any idea of divine will and Sinaic Revelation,
since the natural law is necessary while the biblical law remains contingent.
Unlike the second law, the first cannot be annulled. In this sense, Adam and
Eve could have transgressed the prohibition of eating the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil, but they could not have transgressed the law of

78 R. Shmuel Motot, Perush 'al perush. Megylat setarym. Venice, 1554, 46a
79 R. Yehuda L. Krinsky, Mehoqeqey Yehuda 'al Devarym, Qarney 'Or. Vilna, 1928, 2a ,
80 Michael Friedlander, Essays on the writing of Ibn Ezra, 62-65
81 Mishnah Soferym VI, 4, mentioned by Spinoza in the TTP, IX, 20, 380-381; Talmud

Yerushalmy, Ta'anyt IV, 2, 68a.

54
Hermeneia - Nr. 33/2024 Jacques J. Rozenberg

the falling bodies.82 Spinoza, in denying Jewish tradition, could not believe
that the Torah was written in a meta-natural way, and that it was therefore
also able to describe future events.
Historians such as Heinrich Graetz (1817-1891), have taken up
Spinoza's interpretation of Ibn Ezra, noting that "in dark and enigmatic
meanders (in dunkeln, rathselhaften Wendungen)" R. Ibn Ezra has made it clear
that some passages of the Pentateuch were not written by Moses, but were
added late.83 However, one may wonder, as R. Mordekay Breuer (1921-
2007) does, how Spinoza could have distorted the words of R. Ibn Ezra to
such an extent in order to defend his own theses, thus transforming an
authentic Jewish thinker into a heretic.84 Criticizing the position of Israel
Knohl, who followed the Spinozist interpretation, R. Mordekay Breuer
replies that such a view is in fact the result of a fundamental methodological
error, which derives from the prejudicial idea that the Torah is a human
work, thus allowing us to suppose that it was written by several people. This
approach is based on arbitrary approaches which forge arbitrary methods of
analysis, cut off from the traditional rules of interpretation. They can never
contradict the Monotheist principle that the Torah proceeds from
Revelation, and is "min ha-Shamaym," of divine origin, because it was God
Himself, not Moses or any other prophet, who wrote it and then passed it
on to them.85 As Amos Funkenstein points out, nothing was as far removed
from the thought of R. Ibn Ezra as the idea of questioning the authenticity
and revealed character of Scripture. He developed a hermeneutical principle
known as "accommodation," which made it possible to resolve a good
number of scriptural difficulties; a principle that was misrepresented by
Spinoza in order to base a secularized textual critique. This is why R. Ibn
Ezra cannot appear as Spinoza's predecessor.86 Spinoza's approach
consisted in maintaining the traditional terms, while radically transforming
their meaning. He thus retained the notions of general and providences, but
he reduced them to two distinct modes of natural legislation.87 He also
seems to have understood literally the Talmudic remark that Scripture
speaks the language of men (dybrah Torah kelashon bney ’adam), in support of

82 David Biale, Not in the Heavens: The Secular Tradition of Jewish Secular Thought. Princeton,
Princeton University Press, 2010, 26
83 Heinrich Graetz, Geschichte der Juden. Bd. VI.: Vom Aufblühen der jüdisch-spanischen Kultur

1027 bis Maimunis Tod. Leipzig, Leiner, Reedition, 1870, 207

84 R. Mordekay Breuer, 'Emunah we-Mad'a beParshanut ha-Miqr'a. De'ot. 11, 1960, 18-24.

Israel Knohl, Beyn ‟Emunah lebyqoret. Megadim, 33, 2001, 123-126

85 R Mordekay Breuer, 'Al Byqoret ha-Miqr'a. Megadim, 30, 1999, 97-101
86 David Lemler, Abraham ibn Ezra et Moïse Maïmonide cités par Spinoza ou

l'impossibilité d'une philosophie juive. Revue des Etudes Juives. 168, 3-4, 2009, 456
87 Spinoza, Short Treatise, I, V; Jacqueline Lagrée, La raison ardente. Natural Religion and

Reason in the Seventeenth Century. Paris, Vrin, 1991, 195

55
Spinoza and his Relationship to the Hermeneutics of R. Abraham Ibn Ezra

his thesis that the author of the Bible is himself human.88

Commentators agree that Spinoza did not properly read the texts of
R. Abraham Ibn Ezra. Thus, for example, Warren Zev Harvey points out
that Spinoza "exaggerates" by asserting that, according to R. Abraham Ibn
Ezra, Moses was not the author of the Pentateuch, when he had only
suggested that certain passages could have been written by Joshua.89
According to Steven Nadler, R. Ibn Ezra never affirmed the denial of the
Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch.90 Raphael Jospe notes that the questions
asked by R. Ibn Ezra were not ideological in nature, seeking, for example, to
determine who was really the author of the last verses of Deuteronomy, but
they were geographical. Thus, R. Ibn Ezra asks: "Does a common name
necessarily refer to a place in the Western land of Israel later known by the
Jews, or can it also refer to some place the Israelites came across in eastern
trans-Jordan prior to the conquest of the land."91 In fact, as Uriel Simon
points out, Spinoza did not grasp the true hermeneutical intention of R. Ibn
Ezra, whose concern was above all to remain faithful to tradition and not to
criticize it (ne'emanutyt we-l'o byquratyt). As a result, Spinoza tried to project
onto the writings of R. Ibn Ezra his theoretical presuppositions that were
foreign to him, thus remaining at odds with his commentaries.92

Spinoza and the super-commentaries on R. Abraham Ibn Ezra

Spinoza, posing as the only valid interpreter of R. Ibn Ezra, also

considered himself as his continuator, and as a result he then described as
scaffolding (hariolari) the traditional interpretations that differed from his
own.93 Although he directly studied the commentaries of R. Ibn Ezra, he
seems to have been mainly influenced by the super-commentaries on R. Ibn
88 Amos Funkenstein, Theology and the Scientific Imagination from the Middle Ages to the Seventeenth
Century. Princeton, New Jersey, 1986, 219-220; Nedarym 3a.
89 Waren Z. Harvey, Spinoza on Ibn Ezra's "secret of the twelve." In Y. Y. Melamed, M. A.

Rosenthal (Eds), Spinoza's Theological-Political Treatise. A Critical Guide, 41-55

90 Steven Nadler, A Book Forged in Hell: Spinoza's Scandalous Treatise and the Birth of the Secular

Age. Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2011, 109

91 Raphael Jospe, Biblical Exegesis as a Philosophic Literary Genre: Abraham Ibn Ezra and

Moses Maimonides. In Emil L. Fackenheim & Raphael Jospe (Eds), Jewish Philosophy and the
Academy. Madison, Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1996, 58. This remark seems to be
able to qualify what has been called the "historical criticism" of R. Ibn Ezra, which would
thus have influenced Spinoza's theses. N. Sarna, Abraham Ibn Ezra as an Exegete. In
Isadore Twersky and Jay M. Harris (Eds). Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra: Studies in the Writings of a
Twelfth-Century Jewish Polymath. 17.
92 Uriel Simon, Dyuqan shel parshan – R.'Abraham 'Eben 'Ezr'a. Ramat Gan, Bar-Ilan

University Press, 2021, 195

93 Spinoza, TTP VIII, 3, 328-329, David Lemler, Abraham ibn Ezra et Moïse Maïmonide

cités par Spinoza ou l'impossibilité d'une philosophie juive. Revue des Etudes Juives. 168, 3-4,
2009, 451

56
Hermeneia - Nr. 33/2024 Jacques J. Rozenberg

Ezra, which began to appear in the 13th and 14th centuries.94 It is possible
that the Spinozist thesis of the post-mosaic redaction of the Pentateuch was
suggested to him by R. Eleazar ben Mortarthias, who wrote, in Byzantium
between 1285 and 1295, a super-commentary on R. Ibn Ezra, affirming that
Ezra was in fact the author of the Pentateuch. However, the thesis of R.
Eleazar ben Mortarthias differs fundamentally from that of Spinoza, since
he emphasizes the prophetic essence of Scripture.95 Similarly, R. Shmuel
Motot (second half of the 14th century) emphasizes that according to R.
Ibn Ezra the 12 verses were dictated to Moses by prophecy.96
One of the sources that leads us to think R. Ibn Ezra affirmed the
non-Mosaic authorship of certain verses of the Pentateuch concerns his
commentary on Leviticus 16:8. He points out that the scapegoat (s'eyr le-
'Az'az'el) that was brought on the Day of Atonement (yom ha-kypurym) was
not a sacrifice, and its name itself contains a mystery (sod), and that there are
others in Scripture (yesh lo haverym be-Miqr'a). He adds: "And I will reveal to
you a part of this secret, by allusion, and you will know it when you have
reached the age of thirty-three years (we-'any 'egaleh leka qçat ha-sod beremez
bihyotka ben shloshym we-shalosh ted'eno). According to R. Ysh'ayah ben M'eyr
(13th and 14th centuries), this figure refers to the thirty-three verses which,
according to R. Ibn Ezra, were not written by Moses. 97 In this sense,
Spinoza was also able to consult the super-commentary of R. Shlomo Ibn
Yaish of Guadalajara (13th century), affirming that according to R. Ibn Ezra
thirty-three verses could not reasonably have been written by Moses. 98
However, Nahmanides, who never failed to criticize R. Ibn Ezra when he
seemed to deviate from traditional hermeneutics, does not speak of non-
Mosaic verses. He proposes to reveal the secret that R. Ibn Ezra deliberately
"hid" (mekaseh davar), claiming that the expression 33 years refers to some
other 33 verses: the distance between the first mention of Azazel in Leviticus

94 Cf. Dov Schwartz, Ledarkey ha-parshanut ha-fylosofyt 'al perushey R. Abraham ‟Eben
„Ezr‟a. 'Aley Sefer, 18, 1996, 71-109. Tamas Visi points out that almost all of these super-
commentaries were written by Maimonidean philosophers. T. Visi, Ibn Ezra, a Maimonidean
Authority: The Evidence of the Early Ibn Ezra Supercommentaries. In James T. Robinson (Ed.),
The cultures of Maimonideanism: new approaches to the history of Jewish thought.
Leiden, Boston, Brill, 2009,101.
95 Warren Z. Harvey, Spinoza on Ibn Ezra's "secret of the twelve". In Spinoza's Theological-

Political Treatrise. A Critical Guide. Yitzhak Y. Melamed, Michael A. Rosenthal (Eds), 47, 52-
53
96 R. Shmuel Motot, In R. Yequty'el Lazy 'Ashekenazy (Ed.), Sefer Margalyot Tovah. 136b.
97 A. Ysh'ayah ben M'eyr. In H. Kreisel (Ed.), Hamishah qadmoney mefarshey R. Abraham ’Eben

‘Ezr’a. 612
98 Tamas Visi, The Early Ibn Ezra Supercommentaries: A Chapter in Medieval Jewish Intellectual

History. Ph.D. Dissertation Budapest, Central European University, 2006, 282, note 634.
The author quotes the manuscript of R. Shlomo Ibn Yaish, note 637.

57
Spinoza and his Relationship to the Hermeneutics of R. Abraham Ibn Ezra

16: 8 and the mention of the sacrifices unto the he-goats in Leviticus 17:7.99
R. Yehuda Mosqony gives another explanation of the interpretation of R.
Ibn Ezra. According to him, these are the 33 sin offerings of goats (hat'aot
s'eyrym) that were brought to the Temple each year.100 Uriel Simon reports
other super-commentaries living in the 13th and 14th centuries, such as R.
Ysh'ayah of Trany, R. Eliyahu of Sharash, R. Shlomo Franco, R. Ezra
Gatinio and R. Shimshon Qyno of Marseille. They insisted, in particular, on
R. Ibn Ezra's enigmatic commentary on Leviticus 16: 8, which, with regard to
the term "Azazel." Some have suggested that this is a geographical
anachronism (it would be the future name of a mountain) and a philological
anachronism (this term would be of Aramaic origin, and therefore later).101
Simon points out that the 'sacred' character of the Biblical text is not
affected by the observation of certain anachronisms. Its prophetic status
remains intact, and these anachronisms must be reported to Moses' pre-
science regarding future events and referred to the readers of each
generation whom the text also addresses. ('al shem sofo).102
Spinoza seems to follow the interpretations of R. Yoseph ben
'Ely'ezer 'Alam ha- ha-Sfarady, but he does not retain his conclusions, since
this author emphasizes that all the additions to the Pentateuch, as suggested
by R. Ibn Ezra, were of a prophetic nature and therefore did not contradict
their divine character. He clarifies that because we believe in tradition (divrey
qabalah), it does not matter if it was Moses or later prophets who wrote
these verses. Their words are also true and proceed from prophecy alone.
According to R. Ibn Ezra, if the verse of Deuteronomy 4:2 forbade adding to
the divine prescriptions (the o tosyfu), this prohibition relates only to the
commandments (raq 'al ha-miçwot),103 and not to words, descriptive or merely
informative expressions. The prophets were mainly concerned with the
99 Nahmanides, Perush „al Wayqr‟a 16:8. Kitvey ha-Ramban II. Jerusalem, M. Ha-Rav Kook,
1960, 88. Concerning the relations of Nahmanides to R. Ibn Ezra, cf. Myriam Seqelraç,
Darko shel ha-Ramban be‟iymuç divrey R. ‟Eben „Ezr‟a we-hav‟atam shel‟o beshem
‟omrym. Shenaton leheker ha-Miqr’a weha-Mizrah ha-qadum. XXIV, 2016, 285-302.
100 R. Yehuda Mosqony, 'Even ha-'Ezer. In H. Kreisel (Ed.), 'Even ha-'Ezer, Ben Gurion

University, Makon Bialik, 2021, III, 131

101 Uriel Simon, R. ‟Eben „Ezr‟a- Hamefaresh shehayah lemefurash. Toldot ktyvat

perushym leperushav mer'eshyt we-'ad tehylat ha-m'eah ha-hamesh 'esreh. Ha-Miqr'a ber'ey
mefarshav. Sefer Zykaron le-Sarah Kamin. Jerusalem, Magnes, 1994, 386-402. It should be
noted that the text of R. Yehuda Ibn Mosqony of Bulgaria, written in 1362, notes that the
first super-commentary of R. Ibn Ezra was written by R. Abishai of Sagori, also from
Bulgaria, written in 1170, six years after the death of R. Ibn Ezra. In the 14th century, R.
Joseph Ibn Caspi, followed by a dozen other authors, renewed the genre of the super-
commentary in order to reconcile astrology, Maimonidean philosophy and Kabbalah. Cf.
Irene Lancaster, Deconstructing the Bible.Abraham Ibn Ezra's Introduction to the Torah. 23.
102 Uriel Simon, 'Ozen Milyn Tibhan. Mehqarym bedarko ha-parshanyt shel R. Abraham ’Eben

‘Ezr’a. Ramat Gan, Bar-Ilan University, 2013, 412

103 R. Ibn Ezra, 'Al Ber'eshyt. Shytah 'aheret, dyqduq. 12: 4.

58
Hermeneia - Nr. 33/2024 Jacques J. Rozenberg

meanings (ha-ta'amym) related to the commandments and not to the words

(ha-mylot).104 Therefore, if a prophet may have added one or more words to
the message he has received in order to explain what has been conveyed to
him by this prophecy, this is not an addition. This is why the 70 Sages, who
translated the Pentateuch into Greek (the Septuagint), were allowed to change
13 things, as explained in the Mishnah Sofrym I, 9 and the Talmud Megylah
40a.105
Despite these clarifications, according to R. Abraham Epstein
(1841-1918), the author of the Tsafnat Pa‘eneah not only influenced the
writing of the TTP, but he would have already prefigured the Spinozist
conception of the divine as purely natural ('Elohey ha-tev'a). He posited that
human happiness consists in acting according to the intellect, from the fact
that it can know the laws of nature ('al py ha-sekel shehikyr 'et huqey ha-tev'a).106
Tamas Visi noted that R. Eleazar ben Mattityah, one of the super-
commentators of R. Ibn Ezra of the 13th century, also foreshadows
Spinoza, underlining that Ezra, who is said to have censored passages of the
Pentateuch that might seem problematic for the people, must be considered
as its main editor whom he qualifies as a copyist (ma'atyq)107. It should be
noted that if R. 'Ele'azar ben Matityah seems to express some of Spinozist
thesis, his conclusions are fundamentally different from those of the author
of the TTP. He pointed out that Ezra was also a prophet, and therefore that
the writing of the Pentateuch was well inspired.108
For Spinoza, the original intention of the author of the text remains
totally limited to the obvious textual meaning, consequently what cannot be
documented, immanently, by the text itself cannot be related to the author's
intention either. On the contrary, for traditional commentators, meaning
remains open to permanent decoding, involving the active participation of
the reader. The mere fact that an allusive meaning is suggested by the text,
and thus discovered by the reader, means that it was already intended by the

104 R. Ibn Ezra, Yoseph Cohen, Uriel Simon (Eds), Yesod Mor'a we-sod Torah, 84-85. Aran
Viezel pointed out that for R. Ibn Ezra, in the Pentateuch, the meanings are divine, while the
words were formulated by Moses. Eran Viezel, "Ha-taa'mym 'Elohyym we-« hamylot shel
Mosheh: hashqafato shel R. Abraham 'Eben 'Ezr'a besh'elat helqo shel Mosheh beKetyvat
ha-Torah, meqorotyah we-masqenotav. Tarbyz, 80, 3, 2012, 387-407
105 R. Yoseph ben Eliezer 'Alam ha-Sfarady, Tsafnat Pa‘eneah. 92
106 R. Abraham Epstein, Miqadmonyut Ha-Yehudym. I. Wien, 1887, 133
107 R. 'Ele'azar ben Matityah, on Genesis 12, In Hayym Kreisel (Ed.), Hamishah qadmoney

mefarshey R. Abraham ’Eben ‘Ezr’a, 122. It should be remembered that the thesis of the
"reinvention" of the Law of Moses by Ezra was formulated for the first time by Porphyry
(234-305). Porphyry's Against the Christians: The Literary Remains. Edited and translated with an
introduction and epilogue by R. Joseph Hoffmann. New York, Prometheus Books, 1994,
99.
108 Tamas Visi, The Early Ibn Ezra Supercommentaries: A Chapter in Medieval Jewish Intellectual

History. 289

59
Spinoza and his Relationship to the Hermeneutics of R. Abraham Ibn Ezra

author without there being any need to provide any other documentary
proof.109 The biblical text has a fundamental pragmatic aspect, which
actualizes what Paul Ricoeur calls a "revealing and transforming"
dimension.110 However, Spinoza has completely neglected such a dimension,
which remains crucial to grasp the narratological essence of the Bible,
certainly because of the fact, underlined by Emmanuel Levinas, of a lack of
training in Talmudic dialectics. Indeed, following the research of Abraham
de Mordechai Vaz Dias & Willem Gerard van der Tak, showing that
Spinoza was not included in the register of Jewish studies institutions in
Amsterdam,111 Levinas thought that he did not know the Talmud. He
therefore had access only to a « bloodless » Biblical text, and then he
remained unable to understand its true meaning.112

Narratological levels

The Pentateuch frequently utilizes the reported speech, by Moses, of

the divine Speaker, without using, as Spinoza thought, the subjective
structures of the narrator. In this sense, the Talmud emphasizes that Moses
limited himself to writing the word of God.113 Therefore, the transmission
of the divine reference was, in the case of the Mosaic prophecy, entirely

109 Tamas Visi, The Early Ibn Ezra Supercommentaries: A Chapter in Medieval Jewish Intellectual
History. 235
110 Paul Ricoeur, Temps et récit. 3. Paris, Le Seuil, 1985, 229
111 Abraham de Mordechai Vaz Dias & Willem Gerard van der Tak, Spinoza merchant &

autodidact. Charter and other authentic documents relating to the philosopher’s youth and his relations.
English translation in Studia Rosenthaliana. 16, 2, 1982, 153
112 Emmanuel Levinas, Avez-vous relu Baruch? In Difficile liberté. Essais sur le judaïsme. Paris,

Albin Michel, 1976, 167, note 1. Let us specify that all of Spinoza‟s references to the
Talmud concern only his homilies (’agadot) and not its dialectical logic, of which Levinas
pointed out precisely the absence. Abraham Wolf had specified that it was unlikely that
Spinoza had seriously studied the Talmud. Abraham Wolf, The Oldest Biography of Spinoza.
London, G.Allen & Ulwil LTD, 1927, 143. Paul Vulliaud noted that Spinoza did not
possess a copy of the Talmud, nor of his « abstract composed by Maimonides. » Paul
Vulliaud, Spinoza d’après les livres de sa bibliothèque. Reedition, Paris, Éditions des Malassis,
2012, 33. On Spinoza‟s disinterest in the Talmud, cf. Mino Chamla, Spinoza e il concetto della
'tradizione ebraica'. Milano, F.Angeli, 1996, 127.
113 Bab‘a Batr’a 14b. However, Rashbam (R. Shmuel ben Meir 1080-1160), grandson of

Rashi and contemporary of R. Abraham Ibn Ezra, suggests a narratological distinction

between the divine word addressed to Moses at Sinai and the writing of the Pentateuch.
Thus, the whole account of the six days of creation (mel’eket shishah yamym) constitutes an
explanation given by Moses, in order to introduce to the fourth article of the Decalogue
(Exodus 20:7), prescribing to remember the day of Shabbat (Rashbam on Genesis I:1). In this
sense, Rashbam distinguishes between the direct discourse of God and the comments of
Moses, who then come to explain to the reader the direct divine discourse. Cf. Eran Viezel,
Da'ato shel Rashbam beshe'elat helqo shel Moshe bektyvat ha-Torah. Shenaton leheker ha-
Miqr’a weha-Mizrah ha-qadum. XXII, 2013, 170-171

60
Hermeneia - Nr. 33/2024 Jacques J. Rozenberg

transparent, whereas for the other prophets it remained opaque. The

Midrash underlines that before transmitting his prophecy to the Children of
Israel, Moses specified: "This is the word (zeh ha-davar) of the
Tetragrammaton," while the other prophets began the report of their
prophecy with: "Thus spoke (ko 'amar) the Tetragrammaton." In the first
case, the divine Presence spoke directly through the mouth of Moses, while
in the second case, the prophets reported the divine message through their
perceptual-intellectual structures.114
From a semantic point of view, it could be said that Moses
transmitted his prophecy in a direct and consequently extensional way,
whereas the other prophets stated their prophecy in an indirect style which,
according to Gottlob Frege, denotes a thought and not a proposition.115 It is
therefore always accompanied by a referential opacity of an intensional
nature.116 The Mosaic prophecy was therefore based on a propositional
transparency, where a reported sentence denotes exactly the words of the
divine Speaker. It operated according to a discourse that Franz Brentano
defined as the right mode (modus rectus), whereas the prophecy of the other
prophets expressed a propositional opacity, due to a mediation of the words
of the divine message through the subjective structures of the prophetic
narrator. This last form of prophecy thus belonged to what Brentano called
an oblique mode (modus obliquus).117 However, as Hector-Neri Castañeda
points out, a term appearing in an oblique construction retains its
transparency if it reveals exactly the propositional content of the speaker to
whom the narrator is directly referring,118 which was precisely the case with
all the prophets of Israel, despite their difference in style.119
The account of the event of the burning bush is one example among
others of what Oswald Ducrot calls "polyphonic authority."120 This is
described through an embedding of discourses related to the direct style,
which combines that of the Speaker (the Tetragrammaton), the narrator
(Moses) and that of the alleged recipients of the narrator, i.e. the future
protagonists (the Children of Israel and Pharaoh). Also reported is the
content of the messages that the narrator Moses – who at first refused his
mission, and therefore to be the protagonist – must transmit to the
114 Sifry on Numbers XXX, 2.
115 Gottlob Frege, On sense and reference. English translation reprinted in Adrian W.
Moore (Ed.) Meaning and Reference, 30
116 Cf. Gennaro Chierchia, Intensionality and context change. Journal of Logic, Language and

Information. 3, 2, 1994, 141-168

117 Franz Brentano, Psychology from an Empirical Standpoint. English translation, London and

New York, Routledge, 1995, 345

118 Héctor-Neri Castañeda, Thinking, language and Experience. Minneapolis, University of

Minessota Press, 1989, 88

119 Sanhedryn 89a
120 Oswald Ducrot, Le dire et le dit. Paris, Ed. de Minuit, 1984, 169

61
Spinoza and his Relationship to the Hermeneutics of R. Abraham Ibn Ezra

protagonist recipients, in the name of the Speaker.121

In general, changes in the narrative voice cause breaks in the
continuity of the narrative. Thus the chief cupbearer tells Pharaoh the story
of Joseph's interpretation of his dream, using a mise en abyme of a narrative
within the narrative, or metadiegetic narrative (that is a part of a story world
which is depicted by one of the characters of the primary narrative).122 On
the other hand, the narrator can become an autonymic commentator
himself, producing a discourse quoted from a quotation, as in the verse of
Joshua VII, 26, affirming that the toponym "'Emeq Achor" will still exist at
the time the reader will read this story.123 Spinoza tried to transform the real
narrative into a fictional narrative, in which the narrator, posed as imaginary,
is asked by the real author (Ezra) in order to re-create a fictional narration.
However, Spinoza did not pay attention to the fact that the text embeds
different narrative levels, a fact that R. Ibn Ezra had nevertheless
emphasized. Moreover, as Jean-Marie Schaeffer points out, the questioning
of historical propositions, which are always indirect representations,
requires that they be evaluated first according to their truth value, rather
than according to their fictional appearance.124

The narrator- narratory distinction and the semantic difficulties of the TTP

The Pentateuch presents stratified narrative levels, the semantic

complexity of which must be understood. Historical criticism, promoted by
Spinoza, by separating the text from its rational approach and truth, actually
provoked what has been called "The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative," which
led to a split between the narrative's apparent reference and its historical
significance.125 This is why Spinoza, who did not grasp the importance of
the narrative stratification of the Biblical text, in fact misunderstood its
unitary narrative polyphony, and consequently posited the multiplicity of its
authors.
It should be emphasized that Biblical narration is fundamentally
different from other literatures of Antiquity, because of its oral and

121 Exodus, III, 10-22; Moses Greenberg, Understanding Exodus: A Holistic Commentary on
Exodus 1-11. Second Ed. Eugene, OR, Cascade Books, 2013, 81-85
122 Gérard Genette, Figures III. Paris, le Seuil, 1972, 239
123 Jerome T. Walsh, Style and structure in Biblical Hebrew narrative. Collegeville, MN, Liturgical

Press, 2001 125 and 140; Targum Jonathan and Mezudath David on Joshua VII, 26. According
to Rudolf Carnap, a autonymic expression refers, in the context of a sentence, to a symbol
which is used as the name of itself Rudolf Carnap, The Logical Syntax of Language. English
translation, London, Kegan Paul, 17.
124 Jean-Marie Schaeffer, Quelles vérités pour quelles fictions? L’homme, 175-176, 2005, 27
125 Hans W. Frei, The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative. A Study in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century

Hermeneutics. New Haven, Yale University Press, 1974, 44

62
Hermeneia - Nr. 33/2024 Jacques J. Rozenberg

historical dimension.126 If it proceeds from a transfer from the oral to the

written or from the epic to the narrative, Moses and then Ezra decreed that
the text should be oralized in order to read it publicly, four times a week,
part of the weekly pericope, which is itself read in its entirety on Shabbat
morning.127 This preservation of the oral dimension of the Pentateuch, which
Moshe Idel qualifies as the Voiced Text of the Torah,128 implies at the same
time a relationship, of a pragmatic nature, with the listener. The Midrash
Yalqut Shim'eony specifies that each reading of the Torah actually updates its
donation to Mount Sinai, thus transforming the reader and the listener into
real Biblical protagonists.129 The addressee of the Biblical text, to whom the
effects of reading are addressed, plays the role of what Rolland Barthes calls
" narratory" (narrataire) that is to say, the one – reader or listener – to whom
the narrator is addressing.130 If, in literary narratives, the narrator and the
narratory have only an intradiegetic textual existence, that is to say within
the narrative inserted within the narrative,131 the historical narrative of the
Bible also gives them an extradiegetic status, that is to say, external to the
narrative, aiming at the Children of Israel as real readers.
To understand the narrative status of Moses in Deuteronomy, we can
appeal to notions established by Gérard Genette, who distinguishes
between two types of narratives. The first is of a heterodiegetic order, where
the narrator is absent from the story he is telling, as in the book of Genesis,
while the second is of a homodiegetic order, where the narrator is present as
a character in the story he is telling, as can be seen in the last four books of
the Pentateuch. Concerning Deuteronomy particularly, Moses, as narrator,
presents himself as autodiegetic, that is to say, as the main actor in the story
and the narrator who is also the protagonist. The necessities of the
presentation always require a description in a nested way of describing the
relationships between the narrative act, its protagonists, its spatio-temporal
determinations, as well as its relationship to the other narrative situations
implied by the narrative.132 I think that the narrative difficulties that R. Ibn
Ezra has sought to highlight are part of what G. Genette, borrowing the
term from Dumarsais, calls narrative metalepsis.133 This is a process that
126 Robert S. Kawashima, Biblical Narrative and the Death of the Rapsode. Indiana University
Press, 2004, 5, 161, 213
127 Bab'a qam'a 82a
128 Moshe Idel, The voiced text of the Torah. Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift für Literaturwissenschaft

und Geistesgeschichte. 68, 1994, 145-166

129 Midrash Yalqut Shim'eony, Ytro, 271
130 Rolland Barthes, Introduction à l‟analyse structurale des récits. Communications, 8, 1966,

1-27
131 Susan S. Lanser, The Narrative Act. Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1981, 37
132 Gérard Genette, Figures III, 233 and 252
133 César C . Dumarsais, Des Tropes ou Des differens sens dans qui on peut prendre un même mot dans

une même langue. Reprint, Paris, Delalain, 1816, 82

63
Spinoza and his Relationship to the Hermeneutics of R. Abraham Ibn Ezra

leads to a transgression of the boundary between two differentiated

narrative levels, the first is that of the narrator of the story and the second is
that of the reality described by the story. It is an intrusion of the
extradiegetic narrator into the diegetic universe, that is to say, into the
course of the narrated events.134
Thus, as Gershon Brin points out, R. Ibn Ezra considers Moses to
be the editor ('orek) of the Pentateuch. For example, he emphasizes on the
verse of Genesis 11:28, that the toponym "‟Ur Kasdym" certainly had
another name, since the name Kasdym will only be given later by the
descendants of Nahor, Abraham's brother, but Moses retained it which was
then known in his time.135 Thus, it becomes possible to report the
descriptions of the witnesses of the event to the Mosaic editor itself and not
to another author.
Another distinction made by Gérard Genette can help us to
understand the different temporal modalities at work in the Pentateuch. The
chronology can be real, as in the books of Joshua, Judges, or Samuel, or well
reported, as in the passages of the Pentateuch that I have underlined earlier.
In this case, a distinction must be made between analepsis, which is a process
by which the narrator recounts an event that occurred in the past after the
fact has occurred, and prolepsis, by which the narrator anticipates future
events.136 Thus it can be understood that all the cases of anachronism noted
by R. Ibn Ezra are prolepsis of a prophetic nature.
From a pragmatical perspective, the case of Moses' description of
his own death constitutes what D. J. O'Connor has called a pragmatic
paradox, which is a statement that is falsified by its own utterance, such as
saying : "I am not speaking now," or "I am dead." In all cases, these are
token-reflexive expressions, whose paradoxical character disappears when,
for example, the personal pronouns "you" or "he" are substituted for "I." 137
R. Ibn Ezra's remarks cease to be problematic when they are related to
prophetic dictation, which represents a higher narrative level, similar to that
posed by Bertrand Russell's ramified theory of types, capable of avoiding

134 Gérard Genette, Figures III. 244-245

135 Gershon Brin, She'elot hybur we-'arykah beMiqr'a beperusho shel R. 'Abraham 'Eben
Ezr'a. Te'udah, VIII, 1992, 125-126. R. Jospe remarks that the expression used by R. Ibn
Ezra, in connection with the verse of Exodus VI, 28 "the organizer of the sections" (mesader
ha-parashyot), seems to indicate a late redaction, Biblical Exegesis as a Philosophical Literary
Genre: Abraham Ibn Ezra and Moses Mendelssohn. In E. Fackenheim and R. Jospe (Eds).
Jewish Philosophy and the Academy. 1996, 59.. It may be objected, however, that the fact that R.
Ibn Ezra recognizes Moses as the organizer of the sections of the Pentateuch in no way
implies that this redaction, even if late, is not by Moses himself.
136 Gérard Genette, Figures III. 89
137 Daniel J. O'Connor, Pragmatic Paradoxes. Mind, 57, 1948, 358-359; Pragmatic

Paradoxes and Fugitive Propositions. Mind. 60, 1951, 536-538.

64
Hermeneia - Nr. 33/2024 Jacques J. Rozenberg

logical paradoxes.138 In this sense, the prophetic metalanguage, describing

for example, in Deuteronomy 34:5-6 "And Moses died... Buried there" remains
compatible with purely descriptive narrative forms. In this regard,
Nahmanides emphasized that Moses wrote the entire Torah under divine
dictation, from the book of Genesis to the construction of the Tabernacle
(Exodus 25:9-40), and he finished writing it at the end of the forty years of
wandering in the desert.139
Talmud Megylah 7a notes that the biblical narrative is prophetic-
historical is using the knowledge of the omniscient narrator, which is not
shared by anyone else. For example, the book of Esther states, "Haman said
in his heart," "Esther found favor in the eyes of all who saw her," or "And
Mordecai knew what was happening." R. ibn Ezra sees in the verse of Esther
6: 6 evidence that this book was written prophetically, insofar as only the
Creator can know the "secrets of the heart" (ta'alumot lev).
In fact, the narrative approach to the Biblical text requires a
distinction between the historical value of the data, and the historiographic
force of their representations. The first concerns the objective factuality of
events, while the second is a socio-cultural and axiological judgment on the
facts, and it can always vary according to the textual context.140 Actually, if,
as a narrative, the Biblical text does not represent a story but tells it, it
signifies it by means of language without necessarily imitating the reality
described.141 The Bible has greatly developed the technique of points of
view, always involving a relationship between subject and object, a
perceiving mind and a perceived reality. It thus reflects its own
hermeneutical constructions. There is always an incessant interaction
between discourse, the world and the type of perspective involved, which
together constitute the production of meaning,142 and therefore divine
authorship is not dogmatic, but only semantic. As a result, as Daniel
Boyarin points out, all the difficulties that can be identified in the biblical
text must then be read "as a central part of the system of meaning
production of that text."143

138 Bertrand Russell, The Theory of Logical Types. Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale, 18, 3,
1910, 288-289
139 Nahmanides, Perush ha-Ramban 'al ha-Torah. Reedition, Jerusalem, M. ha-Rav Kook,

1959, I, 1
140 Meir Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative. Bloomington, Indiana University Press,

1987, 26
141 Gerard Genette, Nouvelle théorie du récit. Paris, Seuil, 1983, 29
142 Meir Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 129
143 Daniel Boyarin, Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash Indiana Studies in Biblical Literature.

Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1990, 40. In a similar style, starting from the
narrative, rabbinic exegesis aims to identify a multiplicity, even an infinity of connections
and textual sub-units, each carrying a particular aspect of the hermeneutic content of the
narrative. Cf. Hanna Liss, Creating Fictional Worlds: Peshat-Exegesis and Narrativity in Rashbam's

65
Spinoza and his Relationship to the Hermeneutics of R. Abraham Ibn Ezra

Conclusion

I have sought to clarify the nature of the relationships between R.

Ibn Ezra and Spinoza, who considered himself to be his continuator and his
only valid interpreter. This article has analyzed the theses that Spinoza
attributed to R. Ibn Ezra. I have thus shown that a precise study of the texts
of R. Ibn Ezra demonstrates that in fact, Spinoza only projected his own
theses onto this author. Much more, he made her say what he had never
insinuated, namely that Moses was not the author of the Pentateuch. To do
this, I analyze point by point the arguments given by Spinoza in the TTP, in
the name of R. Ibn Ezra, and its sources in the super-commentaries of R.
Ibn Ezra, which began to appear in the 13th and 14th centuries. I then
appealed to semantic-narratological theories, showing that they are capable
of accounting for most of the textual difficulties that Spinoza, as well as
several super-commentators of R. Ibn Ezra, were unable to resolve in their
reading of the Pentateuch. I then specified the status of the Biblical narrator
as well as its narratory, and the meaning that should be given to its
historicity. I showed that the different forms of Biblical narration always
express an integrated interaction between the divine Speaker, the Mosaic
narrator, the narratories, and the protagonists of the narratives whose texts
are constantly actualized during each of their readings.

References

„Alam ha- Sfarady ben Eliezer, R. Yoseph , Tsafnat Pa‘eneah. Reedition.

Krakow, 1912, Vol. I, 1878
Aranda Gómez, Mariano, Aristotelian Theories in Abraham ibn Ezra's
Commentaries to the Bible.Mediterranea: International Journal on the
Transfer of Knowledge. 3, 2018
Ashekenazy, R. Yequty'el Lazy ' (Ed.), Sefer Margalyot Tovah. Amsterdam,
1722.
Barthes, Rolland, Introduction à l‟analyse structurale des récits.
Communications, 8, 1966
Ben Matityah, R. 'Ele'azar, In Hayym Kreisel (Ed.), Hamishah qadmoney
mefarshey R. Abraham Eben 'Ezr'a, Beer Sheva, Ben Gurion University
Press, 2007
Porphyry, Porphyry's Against the Christians: The Literary Remains. Edited and

Commentary of the Torah. Leiden, Brill, 2011, 78.

66
Hermeneia - Nr. 33/2024 Jacques J. Rozenberg

translated with an introduction and epilogue by R. Joseph Hoffmann.

New York, Prometheus Books, 1994
Ben M'eyr, A. Ysh'ayah, In H. Kreisel (Ed.), Hamishah qadmoney mefarshey R.
Abraham Eben 'Ezr'a. Beer Sheva, Ben Gurion University Press, 2007
Ben Yehuda, R. Mosheh, min ha-Na'arym In 'Ofer 'Ely'or (Ed.), R. Mosheh
ben Yehuda min ha-Na'arym. By'yur 'al ha-Torah me' and R. 'Abraham 'Eben
'Ezr'a. Beer Sheba, Ben Gurion University, 2015
Ben Yoseph Bass, R. Shabtaye, Siftey Yeshanym. Amsterdam, 1680
Biale, David, Not in the Heavens: The Secular Tradition of Jewish Secular Thought.
Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2010
Boyarin, Daniel, Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash Indiana Studies in
Biblical Literature. Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1990
Brentano, Franz, Psychology from an Empirical Standpoint. English translation,
London and New York, Routledge, 1995
Breuer, R. Mordekay, 'Emunah we-Mad'a beParshanut ha-Miqr'a. De'ot. 11,
1960
Brin, Gershon, She'elot hybur we-'arykah beMiqr'a beperusho shel R.
'Abraham 'Eben Ezr'a. Te'udah, VIII, 1992,
Buxtorf, Johannes, Biblia Sacra Hebraica & Chaldaica Masora. L. König,
1618-1619
Carnap, Rudolf, The Logical Syntax of Language. English translation, London,
Kegan Paul, 1937
Caspi, R. Yoseph, Parashat ha-Kesef. In Hayym Kreisel (Ed.), Hamishah
qadmoney mefarshey R. Abraham ’Eben 'Ezr'a. Beer Sheva, Ben Gurion
University Press, 2007
Caspi, R. Yoseph, Perush ha-sodot le-R. Ibn Ezra. Pressburg, 1903
Castañeda, Héctor-Neri ,Thinking, language and Experience. Minneapolis,
University of Minessota Press, 1989
Chamla, Mino, Spinoza e il concetto della 'tradizione ebraica'. Milano, F.Angeli,
1996
Charlap, Luba R., Abraham Ibn-Ezra's viewpoint regarding the Hebrew
language and the biblical text in the context of medieval environment.
Folia linguistica histórica. 26, 1-2, 2005
Chierchia, Gennaro, Intensionality and context change. Journal of Logic,
Language and Information. 3, 2, 1994
Cohen, A., Raby Abraham ' Eben 'Ezr'a : Ha-'umnam benygud le-Hazal?
Qulmus, 2005, 27, pp.87-97.
Cohen, Mordechai Z., Three Approaches to Biblical Metaphor: From Abraham Ibn
Ezra and Maimonides to David Kimhi. Brill, 2003
Cohen, Yoseph, Hagut ha-fylosofyt shel R.Ibn Ezra. Ramleh, Shay, 1996,
pp.121-139;
De Mordechai Vaz Dias, Abraham & van der Tak, Willem Gerard, Spinoza
merchant & autodidact. Charter and other authentic documents relating to the
67
Spinoza and his Relationship to the Hermeneutics of R. Abraham Ibn Ezra

philosopher’s youth and his relations. English translation in Studia

Rosenthaliana. 16, 2, 1982
Ducrot, Oswald, Le dire et le dit. Paris, Ed. de Minuit, 1984
Dumarsais, Cesar C., Des Tropes ou Des differens sens dans qui on peut prendre un
même mot dans une même langue. Reedition, Paris, Delalain, 1816
Epstein, R. Abraham, Miqadmonyut Ha-Yehudym. I. Wien, 1887
Frank, Daniel, Ibn Ezra and the Karaite Exegetes Aaron ben Joseph and
Aaron ben Elijah, in Fernando Dıaz Esteban et al. (Eds.), Abraham
Ibn Ezra y su Tiempo. Madrid: Associación Espanola de
Orientalistas, 1990
Frankel, Steven, Spinoza's dual teaching of Scripture: His Solution to the
Quarrel between Religion and. Revelation. Archiv für Geshichte der
Philosophie. 84, 2002
Frege, Gottlob, On sense and reference. English translation, reprinted in
Moore, Adrian W. (Ed.) Meaning and Reference. Oxford, Oxford
University Press, 1993
Frei, Hans W., The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative. A Study in Eighteenth and
Nineteenth Century Hermeneutics. New Haven, Yale University Press,
1974
Freudenthal, Gad, Abraham Nager's Super-commentary on Abraham Ibn
Ezra's Commentary on Leviticus and its Erroneous Ascription to R.
Salomon Netter (1859). Alei Sefer, 26/27, 2007
Friedlander, Michael, Essays on the writing of Ibn Ezra. Essays on the writing of
Ibn Ezra. London, The Society of Hebrew Literature, 1877
Funkenstein, Amos, Theology and the Scientific Imagination from the Middle Ages to
the Seventeenth Century. Princeton, New Jersey, 1986
Funkenstein, Amos, Comment on Richard Popkin's Paper. In The Books of
Nature and Scripture. International Archives of the History of Ideas. 139,
1994
Gärtig, William G., The attribution of the Ibn Ezra supercommentary
"Avvat Nefesh" to Asher ben Abraham Crescas reconsidered, Hebrew
Union College Annual. 66, 1995
Gérard Genette, Figures III. Paris, le Seuil, 1972
Genette, Gerard, Nouvelle théorie du récit. Paris, Seuil, 1983
Gherasin, Paula, Expression linguistique de la subjectivité dans le discours
et le discours rapporté. Cahiers de Linguistique Française. 25, 2003
Gootjes, Albert, The First Orchestrated Attack on Spinoza: Johannes
Melchioris and the Cartesian Network in Utrecht. Journal of the History
of Ideas. 79, 1, 2018
Graetz, Heinrich, Geschichte der Juden. Bd. VI.: Vom Aufblühen der jüdisch-
spanischen Kultur 1027 bis Maimunis Tod. Leipzig, Leiner, Reedition,
1870
Greenberg, Moses, Understanding Exodus: A Holistic Commentary on Exodus 1-
68
Hermeneia - Nr. 33/2024 Jacques J. Rozenberg

11. Second Ed. Eugene, OR, Cascade Books, 2013

Harvey, Warren Zev, Spinoza on Ibn Ezra's "secret of the twelve." In
Yitzhak Y. Melamed, Michael A. Rosenthal (Eds). Spinoza's
Theological-Political Treatrise. A Critical Guide. Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press, 2010
Heshel, Abraham Joshua Torah min ha-Shamaym beaspeqlari’a shel ha-dorot.
London, New York, Soncino Press, 1965, II
Hobbes, Thomas, Leviathan. John C. A. Gaskin (Ed.). Oxford, New York,
Oxford University Press, 1998
Huet, Pierre-Daniel, Demonstratio Evangelica. Paris, 1679
Ibn Ezra, R. Avraham, Sefer Me'oznaym. Offenbach, 1791
Ibn Ezra, R. Abraham, Miqr’aot Gedolot. Keter Edition (Menahem Cohen,
Ed.), Ramat Gan, Bar Ilan University, 2022
Ibn Ezra, R. Abraham, Cohen Yoseph, Simon Uriel (Eds), Yesod Mor'a we-
sod Torah. Ramat Gan, Bar Ilan University, Second Edition, 2007
Idel, Moshe, The voiced text of the Torah. Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift für
Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte. 68, 1994
James Robinson T. (Ed.), The cultures of Maimonideanism: new
approaches to the history of Jewish thought. Leiden, Boston, Brill,
2009
Jospe, Raphael, Biblical Exegesis as a Philosophic Literary Genre: Abraham
Ibn Ezra and Moses Maimonides. In Fackenheim Emil L. & Jospe
Raphael (Eds), Jewish Philosophy and the Academy. Madison, Fairleigh
Dickinson University Press, 1996
Jospe, Raphael, Biblical Exegesis as a Philosophical Literary Genre:
Abraham Ibn Ezra and Moses Mendelssohn. In Fackenheim Emil
and Jospe Raphael (Eds). Jewish Philosophy and the Academy. 1996
Jospe, Raphael, Jewish philosophy in the Middle Ages. Academic Studies Press,
2009
Kaspy. In Mosheh Hallamish (Ed.), 'Aley Shefer. Ramat Gan, Bar-Ilan
University, 1990
Kawashima, Robert S., Biblical Narrative and the Death of the Rapsode. Indiana
University Press, 2004
Klymy, Itshaq, Sefer Divrey Ha-yamym. Ktyvah hystoryt we-'emça‘ym syfrutyym.
Jerusalem, M. Bialik, 2000
Kosher, Hannah, Lash'elat mehabero shel "By'yur ha-sodot le-R. ' Eben
'Ezr'a" ha-meyuhas le-Yosef 'Eben Kaspy. In Mosheh Hallamish
(Ed.), 'Aley Shefer. Ramat Gan, Bar-Ilan University, 1990
Kasher, R. Menahem M., Torah Shlemah. VIII, Jerusalem, Beyt Torah
Shlemah, 1992
Kreisel, Hayym (Ed.), Hamishah qadmoney mefarshey R. Abraham Eben 'Ezr'a.
Beer Sheva, Ben Gurion University Press, 2007
Krinsky, R. Yehuda L., Mehoqeqey Yehuda 'al Devarym, Qarney 'Or. Vilna, 1928
69
Spinoza and his Relationship to the Hermeneutics of R. Abraham Ibn Ezra

L„ahra„ar, R. Z. Ha-‟Eben „Ezr‟a be-„eyney gedoley ha-dorot. Tsfonot. 3,

1989
La Peyrère, I, Præadamitæ. Amsterdam, Louis & Daniel Elzevier, 1655
Lagrée, Jacqueline, La raison ardente. Natural Religion and Reason in the
Seventeenth Century. Paris, Vrin, 1991
Lancaster, Irene, Deconstructing the Bible. Abraham Ibn Ezra's Introduction to the
Torah. London, Routledge, 2003
Lanser, Susan S., The Narrative Act. Princeton, Princeton University Press,
1981
Lemler, David, Abraham ibn Ezra et Moïse Maïmonide cités par Spinoza ou
l'impossibilité d'une philosophie juive. Revue des Etudes Juives. 168, 3-4,
2009
Levinas, Emmanuel Avez-vous relu Baruch? In Difficile liberté. Essais sur le
judaïsme. Paris, Albin Michel, 1976
Liss, Daniel, Creating Fictional Worlds: Peshat-Exegesis and Narrativity in
Rashbam's Commentary of the Torah. Leiden, Brill, 2011
Luria, R. Shlomo,Yam shel Shlomo, Maseket Hulyn, Haqdamah R‟ishonah.
Offenbach, 1718
Maimonides, R. Moshe, ‟Iygrot Ha-Rambam.Teshuvot Ha-Rambam we-
'Iygrotyav. Heleq Sheny, Leipzig 1859
Malcolm, Noel, Aspects of Hobbes. Oxford, New York, Oxford University
Press, 2002
Masqony, R. Yehuda, Haqdamah le-'Eben ha-'Ezer. In A. Berliner, D.
Hoffmann (Eds.), 'Oçar tov. Berlin,
Melamed, Yitzhak Y., Rosenthal, Michael. A., (Eds), Spinoza's Theological-
Political Treatise. A Critical Guide. pp. 41-55
Melchioris, Johannes. Epistola ad amicum, continens censuram libri, cui titulus:
Tractatus theologico-politicus. Utrecht, Cornelius Noenaert, 1671
Midrash Rabah, Reedition Lelov, 1875
Midrash Syfry, Reedition Berlin, 1925
Midrash Yalqut Shim'eony, Reedition Jerusalem, 1975
Mishnah, Reedition, Jerusalem, 1952
Mondschein, Aaron, "Yesh lo sod we-hamaskyl ydom": Misygnono ha-
'enygmaty shel Ha-Rav ‟Eben „Ezr‟a 'ad ha-'arakat 'iyshyuto. Shenaton
leheqer ha-Miqr'a we-ha-Mizrah ha-Qadum. XIV, 2004
Mosqony, R. Yehuda, 'Even ha-'Ezer. H. Kreisel (Ed.), Beer Sheba, Ben
Gurion University, Makon Bialik, 2021, I and III
Motot, R. Shmuel, In 'Ashekenazy R. Yequty'el Lazy (Ed.), Sefer Margalyot
Tovah. Amsterdam, 1722
Motot, R. Shmuel, Perush 'al perush. Megylat setarym. Venice, 1554
Nadler, Steven, A Book Forged in Hell: Spinoza's Scandalous Treatise and the Birth
of the Secular Age.

70
Hermeneia - Nr. 33/2024 Jacques J. Rozenberg

Nadler, Steven, Ed., Spinoza and Medieval Jewish Philosophy. Cambridge

University Press, 2014
Nahmanides, R, Moshe, Perush ha-Ramban 'al ha-Torah. Reedition, Jerusalem,
M. ha-Rav Kook, 1959, I
Nahmanides, R. Moshe, Perush ha-Ramban 'al ha-Torah. Kitvey ha-Ramban.
Jerusalem, M. Ha-Rav Kook, 1960, II
Nahmanides, R. Moshe, Sefer Ha-G'eulah. Kitvey Ha-Ramban, Jerusalem, M.
ha-Rav Kook, 1960, II
Netter, R. Shlomo Zalman, Perush 'al Ibn Ezra on Deuteronomy, 1: 2 and on
Deuteronomy 34:1. In Hamyshah Humshey Torah, Wien, 1859
O'Connor, Daniel J., Pragmatic Paradoxes. Mind, 57, 1948
O'Connor, Daniel J., Pragmatic Paradoxes and Fugitive Propositions. Mind.
60, 1951
Pel Ish'ar, Yehuda. L., Perushym leperush R. Abraham ‟Eben „Ezr‟a
laMiqr'a. 'Oçar ha-Hayym, 10-11, 1935
Preus, J. Samuel Spinoza and the Irrelevance of Biblical Authority. Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press, 2001
Ricoeur, Paul Temps et récit. 3. Paris, Le Seuil, 1985
Rifman, R. Yaacov, Toldot 'Avi Mishpahat Rapaport. Vienna, 1872
Rozenberg, Jacques J., The Spinozist Conception of Prophecy versus the
Jewish Traditional Commentaries. Philosophy & Theology. 35, 1, 2024
Rudavsky, Tamar M., The Science of Scripture: Abraham Ibn Ezra and
Spinoza on Biblical Hermeneutics. In Steven Nadler (Ed.), Spinoza and
Medieval Jewish Philosophy. Cambridge University Press, 2014
Russell, Bertrand, The Theory of Logical Types. Revue de Métaphysique et de
Morale, 18, 3, 1910
Sarna, . N., Abraham Ibn Ezra as an Exegete. In Twersky Isadore and.
Harris Jay M (Eds). Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra: Studies in the Writings of a
Twelfth-Century Jewish Polymath, 1993
Schaeffer, Jean-Marie, Quelles vérités pour quelles fictions? L’homme, 175-
176, 2005
Schwartz, Dov, Ledarkey ha-parshanut ha-fylosofyt 'al perushey R.
Abraham ‟Eben „Ezr‟a. 'Aley Sefer, 18, 1996
Sela, Shlomo Sela, Abraham Ibn Ezra and the Rise of Medieval Hebrew Science.
Leiden, Brill, 2003
Seqelraç, Myriam, Darko shel ha-Ramban be‟iymuç divrey R. ‟Eben „Ezr‟a
we-hav‟atam shel‟o beshem ‟omrym. Shenaton leheker ha-Miqr’a weha-
Mizrah ha-qadum. XXIV, 2016
Shelford, A. G. Thinking Geometrically in Pierre-Daniel Huet's
"Demonstratio evangelica" (1679). Journal of the History of Ideas. 63, 4,
2002
Simon, R., Histoire critique du Vieux Testament. Reproduction of the New

71
Spinoza and his Relationship to the Hermeneutics of R. Abraham Ibn Ezra

Edition published in Rotterdam in 1685. Frankfurt, Reedition

Minerva, G.M.B.H. 1967
Simon, Uriel, in The Frank Talmage Memorial Volume, Barry Walfish (Ed.)
Vol.1, Haifa, Haifa University Press, 1993
Simon, Uriel , R. ‟Eben „Ezr‟a- Hamefaresh shehayah lemefurash. Toldot
ktyvat perushym leperushav mer'eshyt we-'ad tehylat ha-m'eah ha-
hamesh 'esreh. Ha-Miqr'a ber'ey mefarshav. Sefer Zykaron le-Sarah
Kamin. Jerusalem, Magnes, 1994
Simon, Uriel 'Ozen Milyn Tibhan. Mehqarym bedarko ha-parshanyt shel R.
Abraham ’Eben ‘Ezr’a. Ramat Gan, Bar-Ilan University, 2013
Simon, Uriel. Dyuqan shel parshan – R.'Abraham 'Eben 'Ezr'a. Ramat Gan,
Bar-Ilan University Press, 2021
Spinoza Opera, edited by Carl Gebhardt, Heidelberg,
Universitätsbuchhandlung Carl Winter, 1925.
Spinoza, Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, Latin text established by Fokke
Akkerman and published bilingually by Jacqueline Lagrée and Pierre-
François. Moreau, Traité Théologico-Politique. Paris, PUF, 1999
Spinoza, Theological-Political Treatise. Translation by Jonathan Israel, Michael
Silverthorne. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2007
Sternberg, Meir, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative. Bloomington, Indiana
University Press, 1987
Strickman, Norman H., Abraham ibn Ezra's "Yesod Mora." Ḥakirah. 12,
2011
Strickman, Norman H., Abraham ibn Ezra's Non-Literal Interpretations.
Ḥakirah. 9, 2010
Talmud Bably, Reedition, Bney Braq, 2004
Talmud Yerushalmy, Reedition Lelov, 1895
Tsarçah, R. Shmuel, Meqor Hayym. In R. Yequty'el Lazy 'Ashekenazy (Ed.),
Sefer margalyot tovah. Amsterdam, 1722
Viezel, Eran, "Ha-taa'mym 'Elohyym we-« hamylot shel Mosheh:
hashqafato shel R. Abraham 'Eben 'Ezr'a besh'elat helqo shel Mosheh
beKetyvat ha-Torah, meqorotyah we-masqenotav. Tarbyz, 80, 3, 2012
Viezel, Eran, Da'ato shel Rashbam beshe'elat helqo shel Mosheh bektyvat
ha-Torah. Shenaton leheker ha-Miqr’a weha-Mizrah ha-qadum. XXII, 2013
Visi, Tamas, The Early Ibn Ezra Supercommentaries: A Chapter in Medieval Jewish
Intellectual History. Ph.D. dissertation. Budapest, 2006
Visi, Tamas., Ibn Ezra, a Maimonidean Authority: The Evidence of the Early Ibn
Ezra Supercommentaries. In
Vulliaud, Paul, Spinoza d’après les livres de sa bibliothèque. Reedition, Paris,
Éditions des Malassis, 2012
Walsh, Jerome T., Style and structure in Biblical Hebrew narrative. Collegeville,
MN, Liturgical Press, 2001

72
Hermeneia - Nr. 33/2024 Jacques J. Rozenberg

Weis, R. Pinhas, 'Eben Ezra we-ha-Qar'aym be-Halakah. Melilah. I, 1944

Wolf, Abraham, The Oldest Biography of Spinoza. London, G.Allen & Ulwil
LTD, 1927
Yovel Yirmiahu, Spinoza and other heretics. Princeton University Press, 1989
Zer, Raphael Itshaq, Raby Abraham ‟Eben 'Ezr'a we-parshanut ha-Miqr'a
ha-Qar'ayt. Megadim, 2000

73