The Third Commandment treats the matter of mistreating God’s name quite bluntly:
Do not take the name of the Lord your God in vain; for the Lord will not acquit one who takes His name in vain.
Rashi follows the translation of Onkelos in suggesting that the repeated “taking in vain” is once an injunction against those who swear by the Name falsely, and once against those who swear needlessly.
Judaism abounds in traditions of protecting the sanctity of Divine Names in writing, and avoiding them in speech except when necessary. In fact, (להבדיל) the Rabbinic manner of protecting the divine name has taken on characteristics commonly found in linguistic taboo associated with swearing (the other type), euphemism, or political correctness. (more…)
You have seen that which I have done to Egypt, and how I have carried you upon the wings of eagles, and how I have brought you to me.
How should we understand the allegory of being carried on eagles’ wings?
(more…)
It would seem from a few of his comments that Ibn Ezra had a fascination for the Hindus and their culture.
For instance, the hand-under-thigh oath that we see between Eliezer (?) and Abraham, and between Joseph and Jacob. Rashi takes this practice as akin to swearing on a bible: Eliezer and Joseph swore on the place of circumcision. Ibn Ezra’s comment is not clear on whether “thigh” is mere euphemism as Rashi takes it, but claims that:
It was the law (custom?) in those days for a man to put his hand under the thigh of authority … as if to say: behold, my hand is under your authority to do your will. And this is still the law in India.
(more…)
In Genesis 31, Jacob decides that he’s had enough of his father-in-law, Laban, and in the end is pushed to escape secretly. His most beloved wife, Rachel, for whatever reason, takes her father’s teraphim idols, and it’s with this pretext of theft that he angrily greets the large family after chasing them seven days.
Jacob, innocent of any knowledge of his wife’s theft, is outraged by the accusation and basically exclaims:
Nu! So search us. If, somehow, you can find one of us has taken your gods, that person shall not live!
This harshness is from personal upset, but is also theological: Jacob could not understand one of his family having the motivation to take possession of forbidden idols.
The question is: was Rachel’s early death a result of this “curse” from Jacob?
(more…)
I don’t know whether anyone has compiled a best-of for the comments of Abraham ibn Ezra, but it would probably have to be divided into “insights” and “insults”. He is often critical of prior commentators, but not always as cutting and hilarious as on Genesis 29:17 where Leah is described as having עיניים רכות (weak eyes).
Ibn Ezra first blasts those who try to make the text not as harsh to the Jewish matriarch, saying they project their own ideas onto God. He then brings the commentary of a Karaite that he was not particularly fond of:
ובן אפרים אמר שהוא חסר אל”ף, וטעמו ארוכות. והוא היה חסר אל”ף.
And Ben Ephraim said that it (”weak”, rakot) is missing an Aleph, and should mean “long [eyes]” (arukot). Yet he was [the one] missing an Aleph!
Ibn Ezra here not only implies that Ben Ephraim had a screw loose, but that if he indeed was missing an Aleph, he would be a בן פרים, a “son of cows”!
Definitely up there in the top-ten.
Genesis reports Abraham being involved in a few very intense dialogues, and it is interesting to notice some of the phrases he introduces his speech with. In chapter 15, his address to God is “My lord, Hashem”. When bargaining with God over the lives of the people of Sodom (chapter 18), he is more elaborate:
- Here I venture to speak to my Lord, I who am but dust and ashes… (הנה-נא הואלתי לדבר אל אדני ואנכי עפר ואפר)
- Let not my Lord be angry if I go on… (אל-נא יחר לאדני ואדברה)
- And again: Here I venture to speak to my Lord… (הנה-נא הואלתי לדבר אל אדני)
- Let not my Lord be angry if I speak even this last time… (אל-נא יחר לאדני ואדברה אף-הפעם)
Appropriate language to speak with God? Maybe, but when it comes to negotiations with men, the relationship is more equal. Abraham discusses the purchase of a burial site for his late Sarah in chapter 23, and from both parties involved, the speech introduction is usually “my lord, hear me” (אדני שמעני) or “hear me, my lord” (שמעני אדני) or “no, my lord, hear me” (לא אדני שמעני) or “but if you will hear me” (אך אם אתה לו שמעני). Listening skills are in high demand, but…
(more…)
So Sarah sees Ishmael playing.
Rashi says:
this means worshipping idols
or it means performing forbidden sexual acts
or it means murder
Ibn Ezra says:
this is something children do
To redigest some stuff that’s been going around the blogosphere for years…
We all know the story of Lot’s wife who turned back during the destruction of Sodom and became a pillar of salt. Chazal even institute a beracha for when we see this pillar.
Nonetheless as I understand, some rishonim — Rabenu Hananel (990-1053), Hizkuni (13th century), Ralbag (1288-1344) — read the verse differently:
וַתַּבֵּט אִשְׁתּוֹ מֵאַחֲרָיו, וַתְּהִי נְצִיב מֶלַח.
They read “and it [the plain] was a pillar of salt” rather than “she became a pillar of salt”, working off the ambiguity of the third-person feminine subject. And a verse in Deuteronomy might agree in suggesting that sulfur and salt overturned Sodom.
(more…)
Apart from beautiful poetic structure of Genesis 9:6 (”שֹׁפֵךְ דַּם הָאָדָם, בָּאָדָם דָּמוֹ יִשָּׁפֵךְ”, “the spiller of man’s blood, his blood by man will be spilled”), it seems to support quite radical capital punishment, or surely avengance at the hand of man. Most modern societies would not support such a simple policy; even early translations and interpretations do not take it literally; but Rabbinic Judaism tends to quite the opposite, possibly to a fault.
(more…)