Why specifically the son of your mother? Ibn Ezra's Philosophical derash

The pasuk in Reeh seems to suggest that it is specifically your maternal brother who will try to tempt you to serve idols. In Devarim 13:7:

ז כִּי יְסִיתְךָ אָחִיךָ בֶן-אִמֶּךָ אוֹ-בִנְךָ אוֹ-בִתְּךָ אוֹ אֵשֶׁת חֵיקֶךָ, אוֹ רֵעֲךָ אֲשֶׁר כְּנַפְשְׁךָ--בַּסֵּתֶר לֵאמֹר: נֵלְכָה, וְנַעַבְדָה אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים, אֲשֶׁר לֹא יָדַעְתָּ, אַתָּה וַאֲבֹתֶיךָ.

7 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, that is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying: 'Let us go and serve other gods,' which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;

I don't think that this is peshat. Rather, the Torah is engaging in poetry for the purpose of stressing your emotional connection. He is not only your brother, but he is your mother's son. Similarly, the wife of your bosom. And similarly, your close friend who is like your own soul! Why stress this? Because of the followup, to disregard this personal connection, and not to spare or conceal him:

ט לֹא-תֹאבֶה לוֹ, וְלֹא תִשְׁמַע אֵלָיו; וְלֹא-תָחוֹס עֵינְךָ עָלָיו, וְלֹא-תַחְמֹל וְלֹא-תְכַסֶּה עָלָיו.	9 thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him;
י כִּי הָרֹג תַּהַרְגֶנּוּ, יָדְךָ תִּהְיֶה-בּוֹ בָרִאשׁוֹנָה לַהֲמִיתוֹ; וְיַד כָּל-הָעָם, בָּאַחֲרֹנָה.	10 but thou shalt surely kill him; thy hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

But of course, naturally, he is also your paternal brother. Focusing too much on the words and making close diyukim will take us away from peshat in this instance.

Rashi makes such close diyukim, in order to derive separately the maternal and paternal brother. Thus, he writes:

your brother: from the father[’s side].		אחיך: מאב:
the son of your mother: from the mother[’s side].		בן אמך: מאם:

Ibn Ezra writes on this:

[יג, ז]
כי יסיתך אחיך -
הטעם אפילו אחיך.

וטעם בן אמך
שהייתם בבטן אחת והאם כגוף והאב כצורה והצורה לא יבינוה, כי אם מתי מעט.

He might be saying that there is stress on the fact that it is ben imecha, but that people don't appreciate that emotional connection as much. Or maybe he is agreeing that it is only the maternal brother. I am not certain.

But the supercommentators of Ibn Ezra see a much deeper message in Ibn Ezra's words. Well, not Avi Ezer who thinks they are reading too much into Ibn Ezra. Avi Ezer just notes that many times ach is paired with the aspect of maternal brother. And by "guf" he means that maternal brothers are from one guf, while as for a paternal brother, since they are just in one "tzurah," there is not such a close relationship and brotherly love between them based on the power of souls and traits to pair them, because the animalistic soul and the power of desire which lies in the liver, they have no relationship together except for children of the same mother, for they are from one body. And this is the straightforward meaning of the words of the Rav {=Ibn Ezra}, and the {other} supercommentators go broadly to explain the words of the Rav, and there is no need for this.

While I favor straightforward interpretations such as this, and dislike overinterpretations into texts, in this particular case I believe that the other supercommentators are likely correct in their deep interpretation of Ibn Ezra.

And that is because Ibn Ezra is often cryptic, specifically when he is writing controversial matters or mystical / philosophical matters, and his reference to tzura and guf, and saying that very few understand tzura calls out that he is engaged in some secret, and quite likely philosophical derash. Indeed, of the type of interpreting Biblical terms as references to the Aristotelian concepts of Form and Matter, as discussed in yesterday's post on philosophical derash.

Thus, to the right is Ibn Ezra, with the supercommentary of Mechokekei Yehuda, divided into the shorter Yahel Or and the more lengthy Karnei Or. He explains that by haEm keGuf, Ibn Ezra is referring to the idea that the woman is comparable to the body, which is the Matter (within the Aristotelian concepts of form and matter). He explains that by stating that the father is like the tzura (Form), Ibn Ezra is saying that it is only understable in the Intellect. And when Ibn Ezra says that only a few understand it, Yahel Or explains that this is because it is not possible to depict it {letzayro} except in the intellect.

In Karnei Or, he basically cites at length the words of Ibn Kaspi in explaining this Sod of the Ibn Ezra. As such, I'll translate it after giving the text of Ibn Caspi.

As Ibn Caspi writes in his sefer explaining the sodot of Ibn Ezra (after I fixed up the OCR):

[sic] אמר ר"א : כי יסיתך אחיך, הטעם אפילו אחיך, וטעם בן עמך ,

שהייתם בבטן אחד, והאם בגוף והאב בצורה, והצורה לא יבינהו כ״א

מתי מספר.

החכם ר״א, רצה להודיע לנו ענין מעניני הטבע באמרו והאם

בגוף והאב בצורה, כי באמרו כי יסיתך אחיך בן אמך, נראה כי אין

הכונה על אחיו חמוחש, כי היה די באחיך לבד, אבל יש לומר

שתורתינו רמזה על שאינו מוחש , וכי גם שלמה המשילם באיש ואשה .ק

ועתה בא לומר כאלו השפע האלהי מצוה על המחשבות השכל שהוא

הצורה: הזהר שלא יפתה אותך מחשבות החומר שהוא האם , ובעת שירצו

לפתותך אל תשמע אליהם כי זה הפך מה שאמר הכתוב : ואל אישך

תשוקתך שהוא הצורה, והוא ימשל בך, כי כשלא ימשול החומר

הוא בן חורין, ויקרא עבד י״י, כמו משה, כאמרו: משה עבדי מת

יהושע א׳): ואמרו: כי הצורה לא יבינהו כ"א מתי מספרי בעבור כי)

איננה גוף, וע״כ לא ידעוה אם עצם או מקרה, כי בענינים הדקים

לא דייק אנוש כולי האי, וזהו האמת .

Thus, first he cites Ibn Ezra, and then he explains:

The scholar Ibn Ezra wished to inform us a matter of the natural matters, when he said "and the mother is in {/is like} the body {Josh: as far as I can tell, he has ב rather than כ in בגוף and בצורה. See inside, as least as printed} and the father is in {/is like} the form. For when it said כִּי יְסִיתְךָ אָחִיךָ בֶן-אִמֶּךָ, it is apparent that the intent was not on the tangible brother, for then it would have sufficed with "your brother" alone {rather than also "son of your mother"}. But there is to say that our Torah was hinting on that which was not tangible, for also Shlomo {Hamelech} allegorized them as a man and a woman.

And now it comes to say that it is as if the Divine Influence commands the thoughts of the Intellect, which {=the Intellect} is the Form: Be careful that the thoughts of the Matter, which is the mother {em}, do not seduce you, and at the time they wish to seduce you, do not heed them, for this is the opposite of what Scriptures told you {in Bereishit 3:16}:

{

טז אֶל-הָאִשָּׁה אָמַר, הַרְבָּה אַרְבֶּה עִצְּבוֹנֵךְ וְהֵרֹנֵךְ--בְּעֶצֶב, תֵּלְדִי בָנִים; וְאֶל-אִישֵׁךְ, תְּשׁוּקָתֵךְ, וְהוּא, יִמְשָׁל-בָּךְ. {ס}

16 Unto the woman He said: 'I will greatly multiply thy pain and thy travail; in pain thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.' {S}

}

"and they desire shall be to thy husband" -- that he is the Form;

"and he shall rule over thee" -- for when the Matter does not rule, he is a free man, and he is called a servant of God, just like Moshe, as it said (in Yehoshua 1) "Moshe My servant has died."

And he {=Ibn Ezra} said: "For the Form, only a very few understand it" -- for it is not body, and perform one does not know it, whether it is an Intrinsic Aspect of an Accidental Aspect, for in these fine matters people are not so precise, and this is the truth.

Admittedly, I am not expert enough in medieval Jewish philosophy and or kabbalah to know for certain that Ibn Ezra is engaging in philosophical derash, or that if he is, Ibn Caspi has arrived at the correct interpretation of Ibn Ezra's words.

Indeed, my inclination is that at the least, the last part of Ibn Caspi's interpretation is off the mark, and the fact that few understand Form is not a separate meta-comment, but rather a reason why the Form-based thoughts and intellectual seduction are less likely to succeed than Matter-based thoughts and seduction. To expand, though I am again admittedly groping in the dark, on the same pasuk, Rashi writes:

[If your brother…tempts you] in secret: Scripture speaks of what commonly [occurs, but does not exclude the other case, i.e., one who entices publicly], for usually the one who entices speaks clandestinely. Similarly, Solomon [describing an episode of enticement,] says: “In the twilight, in the evening time, in the blackness of night and the darkness” (Prov. 7:9). - [Sifrei]

בסתר: דבר הכתוב בהווה, שאין דברי מסית אלא בסתר. וכן שלמה הוא אומר (משלי ז, ט) בנשף בערב יום באישון לילה ואפלה:

That the Torah speaks of what commonly occurs is a very well-known concept in the realm of parshanut. Since it is quite possible that Ibn Ezra treats this as referring to a maternal brother rather than a paternal brother, or the equivalent Aristotelian concepts in the realm of allegorical philosophical derash, he needs to explain why this is so. And the answer is that דבר הכתוב בהווה. On a literal level, he would hearken more to a maternal brother since they shared the same womb, though at different times. On a philosophical level, there is something about Form and Matter that makes Matter-based intellectual seduction more successful, and part of it is that only a few really work with and deal with Form, because of most people's limitations.

If we say this, it is not a matter of necessarily having Form {or Intellect} ignore Matter. There are two ways one can deviate into heresy and away from Hashem, one in Form and one in Matter. But דבר הכתוב בהווה.

Thus, I have my doubts about Ibn Caspi's particular interpretation of Ibn Ezra, but at the same time I am fully aware of my limitations in this area and must loudly proclaim them. Perhaps someone with more familiarity with these concepts can grapple with this, and tell me if I am off the mark.