In the name of the great and awesome God, I shall begin to explain the Torah.

Please, God of my father Abraham, deal kindly with Your servant Abraham. May the opening of Your words give light to Your servant, the son of Your servant Meir. May help come from Your presence to the son of Your maidservant who is called Ibn Ezra.

This is the Book of the Upright, composed by Abraham the prince. It is bound with the cords of grammar, approved by the eyes of reason and a source of happiness to everyone who supports it. These are the words of Abraham the Spaniard already mentioned:

The commentators on the Torah follow five approaches.

The first approach

The first approach is long and broad, reaching beyond the comprehension of the people of our generation. If truth is like a point within a circle, this approach resembles the broad line forming the circle’s circumference. Great scholars followed this path, particularly the heads of the academies in the lands ruled by the Muslims.

Rabbi Isaac composed two books covering the text from “In the beginning” to “the heavens and the earth were completed,” yet because of his many words, he still hadn’t finished. In explaining “Let there be light,” he discussed the beliefs of those who teach that light and darkness are opposing powers. He himself, however, walked in darkness and didn’t recognize the truth. When explaining “Let the earth bring forth,” he produced words from his own imagination and discussed every kind of tree and plant, large and small. In explaining the living creatures, he introduced foreign branches of learning.

Rabbi Saadia, the head of the Diaspora academy, travelled along the same road. In explaining “Let there be lights,” he introduced other theories concerning the measurements calculated by mathematicians.

Rabbi Samuel ben Hofni likewise gathered wind into his hands. In explaining “Jacob departed,” he discussed at great length every prophet who had travelled, how often each one had left his home and the benefits of travel. None of this helps explain the verse. When he reached “and he dreamed,” he wrote about the interpretation of dreams and why people see visions while sleeping.

Anyone who wishes to understand the secular sciences should study them in the books written by experts. He may then examine their proofs and determine whether they’re sound. The geonim introduced these subjects into their books without proofs, and some of them didn’t understand the methods of the ancient scholars or the sources from which their ideas came.

The second approach

The second approach was chosen by people who follow crooked paths, although they’re Israelites. They imagined that they had reached the central point, but they didn’t know where it was. This is the way of the Sadducees and Karaites, including Anan, Benjamin, Ben Mashiah and others of their kind. They don’t believe the words of those who transmitted the religious tradition, and their interpretations wander to the left and the right.

Each person interprets the verses according to his own wishes. Because they lack knowledge of the Hebrew language, they also make grammatical errors. How can they establish the commandments according to their own opinions when their thinking changes constantly? The Torah doesn’t explain even one commandment in all its necessary details.

I shall mention one important example. The Torah declares the penalty of excision for eating on the Day of Atonement and for eating leaven during Passover. It commands the observance of seven days, sacrifices, the Sabbath and the sounding of the shofar. Yet the detailed rules governing these commandments aren’t stated explicitly. Without tradition, how would we even determine the months?

People impoverished in understanding have based their calculations upon the words “for signs and for appointed times.” They don’t recognize that the verb “let them be” is plural and refers to the heavenly lights and stars. Someone who claims that the conjunction in “and for appointed times” is superfluous should find a friend willing to believe him. Even if we find two or three unnecessary conjunctions elsewhere, who can prove that this conjunction is unnecessary when thousands of others contribute to the meaning?

Even if the verse had said, “The moon shall be a sign for the appointed times during the months,” who could prove that it referred to the sacred festivals established by God? Scripture mentions many other appointed times.

Suppose that the phrase “the appointed times of the Lord” had been stated explicitly. A major question would remain: Does a month end when the moon completes its circuit through the zodiac in twenty-seven days and a fixed number of hours? Does it depend upon the revolution of the eccentric sphere, whose center differs from the earth’s center? Does it follow the revolution of the sphere of the lunar nodes? The smaller sphere moves in the opposite direction.

If we base the month upon the conjunction of the sun and moon, there are still three possible conjunctions: one calculated in their spheres, one measured in relation to the highest sphere and one based upon their apparent positions. How would we know which one to accept? Those who say that the matter depends upon human observation have eyes but don’t see. Let them show us where this lost rule can be found in the Torah or the Prophets.

They haven’t interpreted the phrase “month by month” correctly, since the verse doesn’t mention the moon. It means that everything should be done at its proper time: each day on its day and each Sabbath on its Sabbath.

Sometimes only six hours pass between the astronomical conjunction and sunset, and the moon may be visible under certain conditions. At other times thirty hours may pass and it still won’t be visible, even from the hills. The moon’s movements vary because of its own sphere and its relationship to the sun’s sphere. Visibility also differs according to a country’s longitude and latitude. If clouds cover the land and the moon isn’t seen at the beginning of Elul or Tishrei, must we fast for three days on the Day of Atonement?

Who told us that the months should contain thirty days? Judah the Persian composed a book calculating the year and months according to the sun. The Torah doesn’t tell us how testimony concerning the new moon should be received. Who qualifies as a witness? What happens when a witness has travelled a long distance on the Sabbath? May testimony be accepted from a father and son, converts or women?

Even if all these details had been explained, another difficult matter remains absent from the Torah of Moses: How many months should the year contain? If the decision depends upon the arrival of spring, does that mean the ripening of wheat or barley? When and where should it be examined? If drought strikes the Land of Israel and the surrounding regions so that no grain has sprouted, much less ripened, should the year be ordinary or intercalated? The Torah also gives no method for counting the weeks before the festival that we call Atzeret.

All these commandments require received tradition. Those who answer that the teachers of the Mishnah testified concerning the sighting of the moon should also accept their testimony concerning the requirements of the year. The year was established through a proclamation of the court, and its intercalation depended upon the season, the ripening of the grain and the needs of the community.

Why does the Torah explain the laws of leprosy in detail, although they apply only occasionally and to individual people, while it doesn’t provide a clear account of the festivals, which bind every Israelite in every generation? Why must we search here and there for hints within a perfect Torah?

This proves that Moses relied upon the Oral Torah, which brings joy to the soul and healing to the heart. There’s no distinction in authority between the two Torahs, for both were transmitted to us by our ancestors.

King Hezekiah’s Passover strengthens this belief. Acting with the counsel of the elders, he didn’t offer the Passover sacrifice at its regular time. He permitted leaven during the first month and observed the second Passover for seven days like the first. Many passages indicate that the Most High accepted his actions. He acted through a properly constituted court, and there was no deceit in him.

The third approach

The third approach is a road of darkness and gloom lying entirely outside the circle. Its followers invent secrets for everything and believe that the Torah and all its laws are riddles. I won’t answer them at length, for they’re people whose hearts have gone astray.

They’re correct about one matter. Every commandment, whether great or small, must be weighed upon the scales of reason. Knowledge planted in the heart comes from the wisdom of the One who has existed from eternity.

If reason can’t accept something, or if it contradicts what is known through the senses, we must seek its hidden meaning. Reason is the foundation, for the Torah wasn’t given to someone without understanding. A person’s intellect is the messenger between him and his God.

Anything that reason doesn’t reject should be interpreted according to its plain meaning and proper sense. We should accept it as true and shouldn’t feel along a wall like blind people, dragging the text wherever our needs take us. Why should we transform what is evident into something concealed?

Some expressions can possess two meanings, both of which are true and clear. One may be physical and the other conceptual. Circumcision of the flesh and circumcision of the heart provide an example. The Tree of Knowledge also possesses a pleasing secret, yet the account remains true according to its plain meaning.

If someone’s mind can’t contain this, let him open his eyes. Nature produces many organs, including the nostrils, tongue and legs, that serve more than one purpose.

The fourth approach

The fourth approach comes close to the central point, and a group of scholars has followed it. This is the approach of the sages in Greek and Christian lands. They don’t weigh interpretations on the scales of reason and rely primarily upon homiletical interpretation, as found in works such as Lekah Tov and Or Einayim. Since these teachings already appear in the books of the ancient sages, why should later writers trouble us by recording them again?

One homily may contradict another. Some contain a secret that isn’t explained. Consider the teaching that the Torah existed two thousand years before the world. This is true when understood according to its concealed meaning, although many people don’t understand it that way. It can’t be literally true, since a year consists of a set number of days, while moments and days are measured by the revolution of the celestial sphere. Without a celestial sphere, there can be no day, much less two days, one year or two thousand years.

Someone who asks what existed before the world should be ashamed of seeking existence within nonexistence. Those who answer that God created the world when He knew that the proper time had arrived have constructed an answer upon emptiness. The same is true of those who say that He created the world to display His power to humanity. They’ve made humanity the purpose of creation and answered only a small part of a much greater question.

Clear proofs show that the inhabited portion of the earth is only half of one-sixth of its surface. The entire earth is like a point in relation to the sphere surrounding it, and even more so in relation to the highest sphere.

According to the straightforward meaning, the word “day” in the homily can’t be interpreted as Scripture normally uses it. If the verse intended two thousand years, it would have said “two days.” The doubled phrase “day by day” means every day, just as “each man” means every man and “Blessed be the Lord day by day” means every day. The end of the verse proves this: “rejoicing before Him at all times.” Soon afterward it says, “watching daily at my doors.” Would that mean that we should observe the trustworthy Torah only until two thousand years have passed?

The verse “For a thousand years in Your sight” isn’t addressed directly to God in the manner these interpreters assume. Anyone who wants its explanation may find it in my commentary on Psalms.

Some homilies encourage a weak person faced with a difficult law. Others rest upon accepted reasoning, while some concern a legal opinion that wasn’t adopted. Certain homilies are useful for particular audiences and guide young people toward understanding. A bird that can’t see in the brightness of day may still see at night because its eyes are weak.

Consider the homily that the world was created with the letter bet because bet begins the word berakhah, meaning blessing. If that reasoning were decisive, the same letter also begins biblical words and phrases meaning “the Lord empties the earth,” “I shall make it desolate,” “the grinders cease,” “they didn’t know them,” “destruction,” “your clothes wore out,” “the Lord swallowed up,” “the Lord confused,” “He cut you off,” “He created them,” “between the pieces,” “disgrace and wrath,” “they gave birth for terror,” “I shall bring terrors upon you,” “a worthless man,” “Baal Peor,” “Bel has bowed” and “priests of the high places.”

Anyone with even a little intelligence, especially someone possessing divine wisdom, can devise homilies. All such interpretations are like garments placed over the plain body of the text. Our ancient teachers, of blessed memory, therefore said: “A biblical verse never loses its plain meaning.”

The word bereshit, “in the beginning,” has been interpreted in many ways. Some say that the world was created for the Torah, which is called “the beginning of His way.” Others say that the world was created upon Leviathan, which is called “the beginning of God’s ways.” Some teach that it was created so that people would fear God, since “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.” Others say that it was created for the first fruits, which Scripture calls “the first fruits of your land.”

Why does the Torah begin with the letter bet? Some say that it indicates that God is one while created things are divided into two components, substance and form, or that two worlds exist.

Why are the letters bet, resh, aleph and shin followed by yod and tav? Some interpret them as an allusion to the 410 years during which the First Temple stood. Since the Temple existed in the divine plan before heaven and earth, its destruction is supposedly indicated by the following words: “The earth was unformed and void, with darkness over the face of the deep.” Darkness came into the world when the divine presence departed.

“The spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters” is interpreted to mean that the spirit of wisdom and understanding rested upon the commentators of the Torah, which is compared to water. “Let there be light” is then interpreted as a reference to the messianic age, when God will distinguish between those who hope for His salvation and those whose deeds are performed in darkness.

Others divide bereshit into two words and claim that everything came from fire, the elemental foundation. Another explanation takes shit as meaning six, referring to the six dimensions of every physical body.

The initial letters of the words in the first verse have also been interpreted in relation to the entire alphabet. Its seven words are compared to seven kings or the seven planets. Its twenty-eight letters are compared to the stations of the moon and to the twenty-eight times listed in Ecclesiastes.

Genesis begins with bet and ends with mem, supposedly corresponding to the explicit divine name pronounced by the high priest on the Day of Atonement and given to Moses at Sinai. Scripture says, “The Lord is among them, Sinai in holiness.” The Torah begins with bereshit and ends with “Israel,” supposedly because Israel arose in the divine plan at the beginning of creation.

In short, there’s no end to homiletical interpretation.

The fifth approach

The fifth approach is the foundation upon which I shall establish my commentary. It is right in my eyes before the Lord, whom alone I fear. I shall show no partiality when interpreting the Torah.

I shall carefully investigate the grammar of every word to the best of my ability and then explain it according to what I can attain. Whenever a word requires explanation, its meaning will be found where that word first occurs. Thus the explanation of “heavens” appears in the first verse, and I shall follow the same practice throughout the language.

I won’t repeat the Masoretes’ explanations of why one word is written with all its letters while another lacks a letter. Their explanations resemble homilies. Scripture sometimes writes a word in its full form and sometimes omits a silent letter for brevity. After offering interpretations of full and defective spellings, let them explain how biblical books could have been copied consistently.

Moses wrote “The Lord shall reign” without a vav, while the copyist of Proverbs wrote “when a servant reigns” with a vav. Many years separated the two writings. Such explanations may be useful for children, but they aren’t necessary for straightforward interpretation. Straightforward interpretation also has no need for alleged corrections introduced by the scribes.

The translator of the Torah into Aramaic translated faithfully and explained many obscurities. When he followed homiletical teachings in certain places, he certainly understood the linguistic roots better than we do. He wished to introduce additional meanings because even uneducated people could understand the plain meaning.

For example, he didn’t translate “his young donkey” as the offspring of a female donkey. He rendered it according to a homiletical interpretation referring to future building. He likewise interpreted “his she-donkey’s colt” in connection with the gate through which the Messiah would enter.

Yet a homiletical interpretation doesn’t remove the plain meaning, for the Torah has seventy faces. In matters involving laws, statutes and ordinances, however, if a verse permits two interpretations and one agrees with the words of those who transmitted the tradition, all of whom were righteous, we shall rely confidently upon the truth of their teaching.

Heaven forbid that we should associate with the Sadducees, who claim that the inherited tradition contradicts Scripture and grammar. Our ancient teachers were truthful, and all their words are truth. May the Lord God of truth guide His servant along the path of truth.