tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post836696534712015158..comments2024-03-05T21:22:43.426-05:00Comments on parshablog: Mishpatim: The implications of refraining from commentingjoshwaxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03516171362038454070noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-13205053945879177162010-02-13T16:45:41.021-05:002010-02-13T16:45:41.021-05:00Why look to Rashbam for an example of a medieval p...Why look to Rashbam for an example of a medieval <i>parshan</i> who offers pshat interpretations as alternatives to <i>midrashei halakha</i> of Haza"l? (Or at least, why look to him as a prime example?) After all, Rashi himself does <i>exactly</i> that, and in this very parsha:<br /><br />On <a href="http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9884/showrashi/true" rel="nofollow">Shemot 23:2</a>, Rashi cites the drash-based interpretations of Haza"l from TB Sanhedrin, and openly faults those interpretations as being inconsistent with the actual intent of the text:<br /><br />יש במקרא זה מדרשי חכמי ישראל, אבל אין לשון המקרא מיושב בהן על אופניו.<br /><br />After detailing Haza"l's opinion (which he has already criticized as being irreconcilable with the words of the verse), Rashi goes on to say that in his own opinion, the verse should instead be interpreted in a manner consistent with its intent, according to the verse's plain meaning:<br /><br />ואני אומר ליישבו על אופניו כפשוטו.<br /><br />Whereupon Rashi then proceeds to offer his own, alternative, pshat-based interpretation.<br /><br />This raises an interesting question about Ibn Caspi's approach: Obviously, Ibn Caspi knew this Rashi, so I cannot help but wonder why he was so reticent about offering pshat-based interpretations of halakhot. After all, Ibn Caspi openly endorses Rashi explanations of the halakhot in Mishpatim (in the passage that you cited). So if Rashi was unafraid to give pshat-oriented explanations of halakhot -- even when those explantions were different from the drash-based interpretations of Haza"l -- then why should Ibn Caspi have been unwilling to do the same?Lurkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02712938121915827845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-15170922675364808432010-02-12T08:12:00.480-05:002010-02-12T08:12:00.480-05:00hebrewbooks has it; i often link to it.
good poin...hebrewbooks has it; i often link to it.<br /><br />good point about the name. ibn in this case refers to his hometown, Largentière, in south-eastern france; but while he was born and died in france, he did travel around to some spanish areas. and he pays a lot of heed to Ibn Ezra.<br /><br />kt,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-33577824764616537412010-02-11T16:43:25.051-05:002010-02-11T16:43:25.051-05:00The truth is, that I didn't refer to Ibn Kassp...The truth is, that I didn't refer to Ibn Kasspi because I'm not familiar with his perush (and he certainly wasn't included in M. Cohen's Intro to Bible (Exegesis)).<br /><br />Where can I find his perush?<br />And why is someone with such a Spanish sounding name from France?Jeremynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-59355020637805041152010-02-11T12:09:58.777-05:002010-02-11T12:09:58.777-05:00thanks. that paradigm makes good sense.
(on the o...thanks. that paradigm makes good sense.<br /><br />(on the other hand, ibn caspi is from france, and he is afraid to diverge, though he does refer us to rashi; and i suspect that he doubted the veracity of some of it. on the other hand, he did travel about a lot.)<br /><br />kt,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-4582183738609045452010-02-11T11:49:28.735-05:002010-02-11T11:49:28.735-05:00Rabbi M. Cohen, one of the great Tanach teachers i...Rabbi M. Cohen, one of the great Tanach teachers in YU, always explained the difference between Ibn Ezra (Spanish)'s pshat and Rashbam (France)'s pshat as having this Nafka Mina.<br /><br />For Rashbam, who understands that there is a Rashi, who gives the midrashic interpretation, he can feel free to give his pshat-based commentary, and even contradict the halakhic drashot of chazal, because he knows that there are two levels. He's talking about pshat in the pasuk, while the halakhot are derived from the drash.<br /><br />But for Ibn Ezra, there's only one level on meaning in the text, and that's the pshat (midrashim may stem from the text, but cannot be seen as a true interpretation of it). Therefore, if this pshat would contradict an explanation we know to be true (namely, the halakhic interpretations of Chazal), he sees that as problematic.Jeremynoreply@blogger.com