כי לא מחשבותי מחשבותיכם

כִּי לֹא מַחְשְׁבוֹתַי מַחְשְׁבוֹתֵיכֶם, וְלֹא דַרְכֵיכֶם דְּרָכָי

Tuesday, October 25, 2011

On the Ibn Ezra’s ‘Rational’ Approach

DovBear last year featured a posting by Yeedle called The Ibn Ezra's 'valid' approach for solving difficult verses (like the flood of Noah, topic of this week’s parashah).

I found the original quote on the Daat site and added my own translation. The text is from the second edition of the Ibn Ezra’s introduction to the book of Bereishit (Genesis):

והנה אומר כלל בתורה גם בדברי המקרא גם במשנה ובכל מסכתותובכל ברייתות ומכילתות
שאם מצאנו באחד הנזכרים דבר שיכחיש אחד משלשה דברים
כי האחד‚ שקול הדעת הישרה או כתוב מכחיש אחר בדרך סברא או יכחיש הקבלה הנגמרה
אז נחשוב לתקן הכל כפי יכלתינו בדרך משל‚ או תוספות אות או מלה על דרך לשונינו
ואם לא נוכל לתקן אל האמת‚ נאמר כי זאת החכמה ממנו נעלמה
כי יד שכלנו קצרה  ודעת בני דורנו חסרה והדבר שהלאנו‚ יהיה כספר מונח ונעזב
וחלילה לנו לומר שהוא שקר וכזב גם לא נאמין שהוא כמשמעו רק נאמין כי הכותב זה הסוד הוא ידעו
כי יש בדברי הקדמונים סודות על דרך משלים וחידות שלא יבינום כל השומעים ולבעל  המחקר יהיו נודעים

Now I will say a general rule concerning the Torah, both the words of the written text and the Mishnah and in all the Books (of the Babylonian Talmud) and the Baraita and Mekhilta. That if we find in one of the [above-]mentioned something that contradicts one of the following three [things]: Firstly, common sense (1) or a verse contradicting another verse through reason (2) or contradicting a taught tradition (3), then we should try to rectify it all, according to our capabilities: trough [seeing it as] a parable, or by the addition of a letter or word, in the way of our language. And if we can’t correct it [according] to the truth, we will say that this wisdom has disappeared from us because our mental capabilities are limited and the knowledge of our generation is lacking. And the matter that we exhausted (brought up?) will be like a book that is laid down and abandoned. And God forbid that we should say it is falsehood and a lie. We should also not believe that it is [to be understood] literally. Rather, let us believe that the one that wrote down this secret knows it (the secret). Because there are in the words of our ancestors secrets through parables and riddles that those who hear it will not understand and they will [only] be known to those who investigate it [properly].

What we learn from here from the Ibn Ezra, a supposed ‘rational thinker’: If something in our tradition is difficult to understand: a) first try to see if it can be understood as an allegory, b) then correct the text by adding one letter or word, and if this all doesn’t work: c) say that we can’t understand it because our brains are limited.

In other words, his approach is:

  1. The Written Torah and the Talmudic books are always true, regardless of the facts.
  2. If they don’t make sense, make sure it will make sense by saying it should be understood in another way or tampering with the evidence!
  3. If this doesn’t work, just say: We can not understand it. Rational thinking ends here.

In short: a more ‘Rational’ Rabbi like the Ibn Ezra admits that he is not really being rational.

So tell me: how on earth can the representatives of Orthodox Judaism expect us to take the Torah, Gemara, etc. seriously?!?

9 comments:

  1. > So tell me: how on earth can the representatives of Orthodox Judaism expect us to take the Torah, Gemara, etc. seriously?!?

    Different epistemology. Orthodox Jews, as a movement if not as individuals, derive all truths about the world from the Torah. You and I have an empirical epistemology, and ultimately derive all truths about the world from the senses.

    Each side assumes that it is of course correct. Without agreeing to how we know things, it’s impossible to have a conversation.

    Of course, we can feel smug knowing that OJ use our epistemology in their day-to-day interactions with the world, at least informally, while we have no need to resort to theirs for anything in our lives.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Good point. Still, when it comes to blatant immorality in the Torah, some 'Torah-true' people will get uncomfortable (like I used to).

    ReplyDelete
  3. Check the Primary Posts on the right hand margin of my blog. I've got all the answers.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. JP: I wasn't talking about any specific questions, just about the approach the Ibn Ezra (considered to be a rationalist Rabbi) takes which, in the end, is irrational nevertheless.

    Your comment seems to indicate once more you hardly bother to read my posts before commenting on them.

    ReplyDelete
  6. UK: No one has all the answers. It's sad, isn't it, when one is so emotionally compromised that one believes that they have all the answers?

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think there's much to be said for the approach described. Assuming (as Ibn Ezra obviously does) that there is value to the religion and the belief system, how does one resolve a contradiction or something that-- for whatever reason-- one cannot accept. Some would argue that one must simply assume that the Torah is factually correct, and that logic and reason are wrong. Ibn Ezra allows that what the Torah says may well not be literally true, and may be a parable pointing to a greater truth. This strikes me as a very liberal interpretation, all things considered.

    ReplyDelete
  8. David: Of course. You are proving my point that the more 'liberal' or 'rational' opinions agree that whenever a rational problem pops up, we have to understand it the irrational way.

    ReplyDelete
  9. interesting , I didn't know Ibn ezra was so disingenuous

    ReplyDelete