Derechos históricos y unidad constitucional

Warren Zev Harvey

The renowned Spanish Bible commentator and philosopher, Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra (1089–1164), is without doubt the medieval author who, with the exception of Maimonides, had the greatest influence on the

Theological-Political Treatise.1Like Spinoza, he was a rare combination of metaphysician and grammarian – a man engaged by both the big questions about God and Nature and the small ones about conjugations and declen- sions. His influence may be detected in many places throughout the TTP. He is cited expressly by name in six different contexts.

In Chapter 1, Annotation 1, Spinoza endorses Rashi’s interpretation of the word nabi` (prophet) as meaning originally “translator,” and adds that Ibn Ezra criticized this interpretation but “did not know the Hebrew language so exactly.”2

In Chapter2, Spinoza writes that according to the Hebrews the “God of gods” ruled the land of Israel but allotted other lands to other gods. He cites Jacob’s words to his family before they entered the land, “put away the foreign gods” (Gen.35:2), and refers the reader to Ibn Ezra’s comments on the verse. The reference, however, is mistaken, for Ibn Ezra rejects the interpretation advanced by Spinoza.3

1 _{Cf. Strauss, Persecution, p.181: “the only man to whom [Spinoza] almost explicitly refers in the}

Treatise as a predecessor regarding his technique of presentation is Abraham ibn Ezra, of whom he

speaks with unconcealed respect.”

2 _{TTP Ch.1, Annotation 1; G iii 251. My quotations from the TTP will be based on Elwes, Shirley,}

Yaffe, and Silverthorne and Israel. Regarding the curious reference to Ibn Ezra’s Hebrew, see my “Spinoza’s Metaphysical Hebraism,”108–109.

3 _{TTP Ch.2; G iii 39. See Ibn Ezra, Perushe ha-Torah, Gen. 35:2, p. 103, and Deut. 31:16, pp. 303–304.}

“Heaven forfend,” he exclaims, “the prophet would sleep with women who worship foreign gods!” Rather, he writes, “God is One” but divine worship differs from place to place in accordance with the peculiar qualities of each place. Cf. on Exod.20:3, p. 134: when Scripture mentions “other gods,” it does not refer to real entities.

In Chapters 7 and 10, Spinoza cites approvingly Ibn Ezra’s view that the Book of Job was translated into Hebrew from another language, but complains he did not prove it sufficiently.4

In Chapter9, Annotation 14, Spinoza mentions an opinion, based on the Commentary of Ibn Ezra, that Jacob took eight to ten years to journey from Paddan-aram to Bethel (Gen.31:17–35:6), and remarks that it “reeks of foolishness . . . pace Ibn Ezra.”5

In Chapter10, Spinoza cites Ibn Ezra as having observed correctly that the book containing the edicts of Queen Esther (Esther9:29–32) is lost.6

However, by far the most significant mention of Ibn Ezra in the TTP occurs in Chapter8 and concerns the “secret of the twelve.”

1 s p i n o z a ’ s e x p o s i t i o n

Chapter8 of the TTP discusses the authorship of the Hebrew Bible, and begins with the Pentateuch. Spinoza argues that the Pentateuch was not written by Moses, as generally held in Jewish tradition, but by a histo- rian who lived many years after him, and who he conjectures is Ezra the Scribe.7He then cites Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra, whom he praises as “a man of very liberal disposition and no mean erudition” [liberioris ingenii vir et

non mediocris eruditionis]. Ibn Ezra, he tells us, is the earliest writer he has

read who held similarly critical views on the authorship of the Pentateuch. However, Spinoza continues, Ibn Ezra’s ideas were so subversive to Jewish tradition that he dared not state them plainly but expressed them in a series of enigmatic hints. Spinoza then proclaims that he shall not fear to reveal Ibn Ezra’s esoteric teaching about the authorship of the Penta- teuch. This teaching involves a riddle known as the “secret of the twelve” (in Ibn Ezra’s Hebrew: sod ha-shenem-`asar; in Spinoza’s Latin: mysterium

duodecim).”8

Spinoza begins his exposition of Ibn Ezra’s esoteric doctrine by examin- ing his comment on Deuteronomy1:2. He quotes the comment verbatim in Hebrew and in his own Latin translation. According to him, the comment

4 _{TTP Ch.7; G iii 110–111; TTP Ch. 10; G iii 144. See Ibn Ezra on Job 2:11: “it is difficult to interpret,}

like every translated book.”

5 _{TTP Ch.9, Annotation 14; G iii 255. See Ibn Ezra on Gen. 33:20, p. 101, where it is suggested that}

Jacob dwelled “many years” in Shechem, and thus Dinah was not seven years old when raped, but presumably in her late teens.

6 _{TTP Ch.10; G iii 145–146.} 7 _{TTP Ch.8; G iii 117–124, 126–128.}

8 _{TTP Ch.8; G iii 118. Cf. Jospe, “Biblical Exegesis as a Philosophic Literary Genre,” pp. 118–128,}

teaches that “it was not Moses who wrote the Pentateuch but someone else who lived long after him, and that the book Moses wrote was a different one.”9Ibn Ezra’s comment reads as follows:

[1] “[These are the words which Moses spoke unto all Israel] beyond the Jordan” [Deut.1:1]. If you understand [2] the secret of the twelve, and also [3] “And Moses wrote [the Law]” [Deut.31:9], [4] “and the Canaanite was then in the land” [Gen. 12:6], [5] “on the mount of the Lord it shall be revealed” [Gen. 22:14], and [6] “behold, his bed was a bed of iron” [Deut.3:11], then you will know the truth.10 Spinoza divides Ibn Ezra’s comment into six units (which I have indicated by bracketed numerals), and discusses them in order. He explains Ibn Ezra’s hints as follows:

(1) “The preface of Deuteronomy could not have been composed by Moses, who did not cross the Jordan.” By “preface of Deuteronomy,” Spinoza means its opening five verses, which refer to Moses in the third person (as opposed to Deut.1:6–30:20, in which Moses speaks in the first person). The author of Deuteronomy1:1–5 describes Moses as having been “beyond the Jordan.” If Moses had been on the east bank, the author was on the west, and must have written these verses after the Israelites had crossed the river, i.e., after Moses’ death.11

(2) The “secret of the twelve” refers to the fact that the entire Law of Moses was written “very distinctly” on the face of a single altar (Deut. 27:8; cf. Josh. 8:30–32), said by the Rabbis to consist of only twelve stones (BT Sotah32a; cf. Josh. 4:9); and thus it may be gathered that the Law of Moses was much shorter than today’s Pentateuch. This, states Spinoza, is in his opinion the meaning of Ibn Ezra’s “secret of the twelve.” However, he adds, there are other possibilities. The “secret of the twelve” may refer to the twelve curses recited by the Levites against those who do not observe the Law of Moses (Deut.27:15–26), which curses are part of today’s Pentateuch but do not seem to have been part of the original Law (which is presumed to be in existence in Deut.27:8, before Moses instructs the Levites regarding the curses in Deut.27:12–13; and cf. 27:26). Alternatively, the “secret of the

9 _{TTP Ch.8; G iii 118.}

10 _{TTP Ch.8; G iii 118. See Ibn Ezra, Commentary on Deut. 1:2, pp. 214–215. Spinoza’s Latin}

renderings are accurate, with three exceptions. (1) He translates “And Moses wrote the Law” (Deut. 31:9), where Ibn Ezra’s Hebrew reads “And Moses wrote” (which could equally allude to Deut. 31:22). (2) He translates “mount of God,” but the verse has “mount of the Lord.” (3) He translates “it shall be revealed,” but Ibn Ezra, judging from his comments elsewhere, understood the underlying Hebrew as meaning “one shall be seen (by God)” (see his Commentaries on Exod.23:15, p. 160, and Deut.16:16, p. 264; and cf. on Psalms 84:8).

twelve” might refer to the last twelve verses of the Book of Deuteronomy (34:1–12), which tell of the death of Moses, and thus would seem to have been written by someone who survived him.12Having given three possible explanations of the secret, Spinoza adds in evident exasperation: “But these, and what others have ariolated besides, there is no need to examine more carefully here.”13

(3) The words “And Moses wrote the Law” (Deut. 31:9), written in the third person, “cannot be the words of Moses” but are those of “another writer who is narrating the acts and writings of Moses.”14

(4) The words “and the Canaanite was then in the land” (Gen. 12:6) were evidently written at a time when the Canaanites were no longer in it, i.e., after the Israelite conquest of Canaan, long after Moses’ death. Here Spinoza cites Ibn Ezra’s reasoning in his commentary on Genesis 12:6: either Canaan, the grandson of Noah (Gen. 10:6), captured the land of Canaan from someone else (which Spinoza remarks is not supported by Genesis10) and the word “then” has the force of “already,” or there is here a “secret” (sod) and “one who understands it should be silent.” The “secret” is that the words “and the Canaanite was then in the land” were not written by Moses.15

(5) The reference to Mount Moriah as “the mount of the Lord” (Gen. 22:14) had to have been written after the mountain had been chosen for the building of the Temple. This was not done in Moses’ time, for Moses does not mention a particular place chosen for divine worship, but speaks of “the place which the Lord your God shall choose” (Deut.12:5, 11, 14, 18, 21, 26, etc.).16

(6) The words concerning Og, king of the Bashan, namely, “behold, his bed was a bed of iron, is it not in Rabbah of the children of Ammon? – nine cubits was the length thereof and four cubits the breadth,” etc. (Deut. 3:11), were written by someone who lived long after Moses. Spinoza adds that the modus loquendi is that of someone who refers to ancient times and points to a surviving relic in order to establish credibility. He infers that these words about King Og’s bed were written during the days of King David, after the conquest of Rabbah (II Sam.12:29–30).17

Thus, according to Spinoza, Ibn Ezra taught that the Pentateuch was not written by Moses, and that the historical “Law of Moses,” which could be written on twelve stones, was much smaller than the Pentateuch.

12 _{TTP Ch.8; G iii 119.} 13 _{TTP Ch.8; G iii 119.} 14 _{TTP Ch.8; G iii 119.} 15 _{TTP Ch.8; G iii 119.} 16 _{TTP Ch.8; G iii 120.} 17 _{TTP Ch.8; G iii 120.}

2 r e v i e w o f s p i n o z a ’ s e x p o s i t i o n

Did Spinoza understand Ibn Ezra’s mysterium properly? Let us now examine his exposition of Ibn Ezra’s comments, and try to determine to what extent it accurately renders their intent.

(1) Spinoza’s opinion that Ibn Ezra’s comment on Deuteronomy 1:1 indicates that “the preface to Deuteronomy” was written after the Israelites had crossed the Jordan seems correct. It should be mentioned that Ibn Ezra adumbrates his comment on Deuteronomy1:1 in his Commentary on Genesis22:14: “on the mount of the Lord it shall be revealed.” He writes there: “the explanation of ‘on the mount of the Lord it shall be revealed’ will be given at [pericope] ‘These are the words’ [Deut.1:1ff.].”18

(2) Spinoza’s theory that the “secret of the twelve” refers to the Law’s having been written on twelve stones (Deut. 27:8) is impossible. In the first place, and decisively, the problem of the lengthiness of the Law and the smallness of the altar is solved by Ibn Ezra in a different way. In his Commentary on Deut. 27:1, he endorses the view, advanced by Saadia Gaon, that the entire Law was not written on the stones of the altar but only a list of the commandments was written on them.19 Secondly, all the other examples cited by Ibn Ezra refer to anachronisms that reveal the post-Mosaic date of the biblical author, but the problem presented by Deut.27:8 is of a different sort. Thirdly, the number “twelve” is connected with Deut.27:8 only by virtue of rabbinic exegesis; but Ibn Ezra, no less than Spinoza, was concerned about clarifying the simple meaning of the biblical text, not its Rabbinic interpretations.

Spinoza’s second theory, that the “secret of the twelve” refers to the twelve curses (Deut. 27:15–26), is extremely unlikely. Ibn Ezra nowhere hints there is a problem concerning the curses and, moreover, the number twelve is not mentioned explicitly with regard to them.20

Spinoza’s third theory is almost certainly correct: the “secret of the twelve” refers to the last twelve verses of the Pentateuch, apparently written

18 _{Commentary on Gen.22:14, p. 72. On “beyond the Jordan,” cf. Rashbam, Perush ha-Torah, on}

Num.22:1, p. 189, and Deut. 1:1, p. 198, who may have been influenced by Ibn Ezra. Another possible influence of Ibn Ezra on Rashbam is found at Exod.3:15; cf. my “Judah Halevi’s Interpretation,” p.130 (note also the reference to Spinoza there).

19 _{Commentary on Deut.27:1, p. 271. This solution of Ibn Ezra (in the name of Saadia) is cited}

and rejected by Moses Nahmanides, who writes: “Perhaps the stones were very big, or this was a miraculous act” (Commentary on Deut.27:3).

20 _{Nonetheless, Professor Uriel Simon has written me that there is in this second theory “something}

surprising and piquant”; for the twelve instances of the Hebrew arur (cursed) are indeed striking (Deut.27:15–26), and the reference to “the Law” in the climactic twelfth curse is conspicuously problematic.

after the death of Moses. In his commentary on Deuteronomy34:1–12, Ibn Ezra makes two separate significant comments about the post-Mosaic date of the narrator, the first on verse1 and the second on verse 6:

“And Moses went up from the plains of Moab unto mount Nebo” [v.1]. According to my opinion, from this verse on Joshua wrote [the Law of Moses]. For after Moses went up, he did not come down. He [Joshua] wrote it by way of prophecy. The proof [that he wrote it by way of prophecy] is “And the Lord showed him [all the land]” [v.1], “And the Lord said unto him” [v. 4], and also “And he buried [him(self ) in the valley]” [v.6].21

“[And no man knoweth of his sepulcher] unto this day” [v.6]. These are the words of Joshua. It is possible that he wrote this in his last days.22

Ibn Ezra asserts clearly that the last twelve verses of the Pentateuch (Deut. 34:1–12) could not have been written by Moses; for after having ascended the mountain, Moses disappeared. Joshua wrote the last lines of the Law of Moses “by way of prophecy.” Only by way of prophecy could he have known that God showed Moses all the land of Israel, that God spoke to him about the promise to the Patriarchs, or that Moses buried himself.23 It was important for Ibn Ezra to establish that Joshua wrote his verses “by way of prophecy,” for otherwise the divine authority of those verses would be dubious.

The view that the last eight verses of the Law of Moses were written by Joshua is found already in classical rabbinic literature (Sifre, Deuteronomy, 357; BT Baba Batra 15a; BT Makkot 11a; BT Menahot 30a): it was debated there whether those verses relating Moses’ death were written subsequently by Joshua or beforehand by Moses “with a tear.” However, the view that the last twelve verses were written by Joshua seems to have been first suggested by Ibn Ezra.24

Ibn Ezra’s remark that Joshua may have written the last twelve verses “in his last days” is significant. In shows that in his opinion many years separated Moses’ death and the writing of the conclusion of the Pentateuch. The elapse of considerable time seems presumed by the phrase “unto this day.”

21 _{Commentary on Deut.34:1, p. 328.} 22 _{Commentary on Deut.34:6, p. 329.}

23 _{The subject of “buried” (Deut.34:6) is unclear. According to some commentators, including Ibn}

Ezra, Moses buried himself; according to others, God buried him.

24 _{The view is expounded also by the relatively obscure Greek scholar, Rabbi Meyuhas ben Elijah, in}

his Commentary on Deuteronomy: “‘And Moses went up’ [34:1]. There are those among our Rabbis who say that Joshua wrote the [final] eight verses from ‘And Moses died there’ [34:5]. However, I say: even from ‘And Moses went up.’ For once Moses went up, he did not come down again,” etc. (Perush le-Sefer Debarim, pp.200–201). Meyuhas, whose dates are unknown, is usually thought to have been influenced by Ibn Ezra; but the converse is not impossible.

(3) Spinoza’s assertion that the words “And Moses wrote the Law” (Deut. 31:9) are those of “another writer who is narrating the acts and writings of Moses” is a convincing explanation of Ibn Ezra’s intent. The suspicion that the words were not written by Moses is reinforced by the subsequent statements that Moses wrote down the entire Law “until its completion” and commanded the Levites to place it by the side of the ark of the covenant that it be “for a witness” after his death (Deut.31:24–27). It would seem that all these verses, which tell about Moses writing the complete and final Law, could not themselves have been part of that Law.

(4) Spinoza’s explanation of Ibn Ezra’s allusion to the text “and the Canaanite was then in the land” (Gen.12:6) is doubtless correct. It is based, after all, on Ibn Ezra’s own words in his Commentary on Genesis.

(5) Similarly, Spinoza’s explanation of Ibn Ezra’s allusion to the text “as it is said today, ‘on the mount of the Lord it shall be revealed’” (Gen. 22:14) seems clearly right. He convincingly contrasts the uniqueness of the future divine service at the Temple Mount in Jerusalem with Moses’ recurring non-specific references to “the place which the Lord your God shall choose.” The anachronism observed by Ibn Ezra is made acute by the biblical narrator’s etiological use of the word “today”: the saying about the Temple is familiar today, i.e., in the time of the narrator, when the Temple of Solomon has been built, but not in that of Abraham or in that of Moses. (6) Finally, Spinoza’s interpretation of Ibn Ezra’s reference to King Og’s bed (Deut. 3:11) is likewise compelling. The anachronism here is again clear: in the days of the narrator, who lived after King David defeated the Ammonites, the Israelites knew about King Og’s bed in Rabbah, but they did not know about it in Moses’ days.

Spinoza’s interpretation of Ibn Ezra’s esoteric teaching is thus mostly accurate. He does, however, exaggerate when he claims that Ibn Ezra denied the authorship of the Pentateuch to Moses. With one exception, Ibn Ezra’s examples, as Spinoza himself interprets them, do not prove that Moses did not write the Pentateuch, but only that there are some passages in it not written by him. The one exception is Spinoza’s erroneous interpretation of the “secret of the twelve” as referring to the “twelve stones.” If Spinoza presumed the correctness of this interpretation (which was, after all, his preferred interpretation of the “secret of the twelve”), then his exaggerated assertion that Ibn Ezra denied the authorship of the Pentateuch to Moses may not be dismissed as having been made in bad faith. As for Ibn Ezra’s true view, it might be argued plausibly that he had in mind only minor interpolations. Thus, with regard to Deuteronomy1:1, he seems to have intended that only five verses were written after Moses’

death. As for Deuteronomy34:1–12, only twelve verses are involved. The allusion to Deuteronomy31:9 may include most of the chapter. However, with regard to Genesis12:6, 22:14, and Deuteronomy 3:11, it is possible that Ibn Ezra intended that only the short anachronistic phrases in question were inserted after Moses’ death.25

3 i n f l u e n c e s

Spinoza’s interpretation of Ibn Ezra’s cryptic comments on Deuteronomy 1:2 was not created ex nihilo. There was a remarkably rich supercommen- tary literature in Hebrew on Ibn Ezra’s Bible commentaries. Scores of medieval supercommentaries were written. Many have survived – most only in manuscript, but some have been printed.26 In addition, in his explication of Ibn Ezra’s comments, Spinoza certainly found some help in the writings of Jews and Christians on the general topic of the authorship of the Pentateuch. In what follows, I shall briefly examine the discussions of Ibn Ezra’s comments by two of his major medieval supercommenta-