Abraham Ibn Ezra's Non-Literal Interpretations - Hakirah.org

296 : Hạkirah, the Flatbush Journal of Jewish Law and ThoughtIn conclusion, Ibn Ezra’s commentary on Scripture is far frombeing a mere literal interpretation thereof. It is a literal interpretationaugmented when necessary by philosophy, astrology, and evenmidrashic interpretations. In fact Ibn Ezra’s commentary on the Pentateuchwas not only studied for its biblical exegesis, but it served as atextbook of Jewish philosophy. 61 Though at first glance it might seemfar-fetched to compare Ibn Ezra’s commentary with Rashi’s commentary,for they greatly differ in their interpretation of the plainmeaning of the text, they do share a common ground. Rashi aimed toexplain the plain meaning of the text and then to offer its midrashicmeaning; Ibn Ezra aimed at giving the plain meaning of the text andthen explaining it philosophically. What they have in common is thatboth did not limit themselves to the plain meaning of the text. For acommentary that more or less aims only at a literal interpretation ofthe text of Scripture, one must turn to Ibn Ezra’s contemporary,Rabbi Shmuel ben Meir (Rashbam). 61 Uriel Simon, “Interpreting the Interpreter” in Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra:Studies in the Writings of a Twelfth-Century Jewish Polymath (ed. IsadoreTwersky and Jay M. Harris, 1993) p. 111.