Who is a rishon?

The distinction between Rishonim and Acharonim is axiomatic to Talmudic study and, really, to all of Judaism. One does not argue with Rishonim. Rishonim, we often think, are above criticism or rejection; they cannot be disproved. Thus, one can say, "A shvere Rambam", but not, "Rambam erred". Acharonim, on the other hand, can be questioned and rejected, or at least so goes the usually accepted view (see here for a discussion, http://www.avakesh.com/2006/11/r_boruch_ber_le.html .)

But who is a Rishon? You could say that anyone who lived during a particular historical period is a rishon; however, this ignores distinctions between commentators, halachists, philosophers, exegetes and poets. It also goes against our experience of variations in the quality of the work of different authors of that era. Was Yehuda Halevi a rishon? I would say yes. What about Ibn Ezra, Abarbanel, R. Bachya? How about Ephodi, Maharil or ShemTov ibn Shem Tov? You see the problem!?

Here is how Mechy Frankel expressed it in an Avodah post. "Does contemporaneity invest all members of a generation
with an equivalent halakhic authority -- asked in that way, I would assume
the answer is trivially, no. thus to call r. chasdai crescas -- remembered
for matters other than halokhic contributions -- in the same breath that
calls rambam or rabbeinu tam rishonim seems to blur some important distinction
that needs to be made. This question more usually lurks just underneath
-- and occasionally just above -- the horizon when the traditionalist
contemplates the ibn ezra, who at least was an exegete of note but had
not distinguished himself as a ba'al talmud -- few traditionalists have
much compunction blowing off the ibn ezra's opinion of things, even in
matters of poroshonus, or even speaking of him with borderline disrespect,
in a way they would never do for one of his ba'alei tosofos contemporaries
-- but yet preople, somewhat schizophrenically, account the ibn ezra a
rishon. I'm not sure that many would grant r. crescas even the same
grudging period acknowledgement granted ibn ezra. Then too, there is
the other issue of rishonic era dating. While I would acknowledge r.
crescas to fall, barely, within the rishonic period, that's only because
he was a sefaradi and we would want to acknowledge the nimuqei yosef,
rivash, and rashbetz as rishonim even in the early 1400s.
I will forebear repeating here the reasons which I had previously remarked,
and are presumably exhumable in old mail jewish or avodah archives, that
-- despite popular published time line posters and various artscroll
pubs, ashqenazi rishonim have disappea red by the mid 1300s and everybody
else from then on -- specifically including such as maharil and t'rumas
had'deshen, are already acharonim. As for Abarbanel, even considering
the more extended sefaradi rishonic period, and the fact that he may
have been barely born while the last of the sefaradi rishonim were yet
living, he is an acharon."

Please note - I cite this only in order to express the problem. My own view is as follows.

Here is what I think:

The status of a Rishon is established by originality and consistency. What I mean by this is that the classic rishonim always display "makoriyut"; that is, what they say is basic, foundational, incontrovertible (even if arguable) and carries a stamp of deep thought, consideration of all aspects of a topic, familiarity with the entire rabbinic corpus, and fidelity to the topic. They are also consistent. Every shtickel of Rashbo, Rashi, Rambam possesses this characteristics. Not so with Acharonim. Some to a greater degree and others to a lesser degree, their writings contain forced interpretations, stretches, unappealing svoros and, rarely, actual errors. This is why one can argue on an achaaron but never on a rishon.

Lehavdil, compare Shakespeare or Homer and Robert Frost/ They all wrote some sublime poetry. But, everything that the former wrote is classic; there is not  a passage of the Bard's writing, for example, that is subprime. Not so Frost, some of his stuff is sublime and some is plainly tedious and yeoman's work.

What lead me to this view. I was trying to understand a statement that "Ibn Ezra is not a rishon" ( I heard it in the name of a great man but later the person who told it to me denied saying so). Ruminating about this brought me to a realization that Ibn Ezra's commentary, full as it is of profound and remarkable thoughts, clearly possesses this characteristic of the Torah of acharonim, whereas Ramban's or Rashi's commentary does not.                      

Comments

[DS]

I have heard Rav Aaron say that not everyone who lived at the time of the Rishonim has the status of a "Rishon," but would highly, highly doubt that Rav Aaron would count Ibn Ezra as one of his examples.

For one thing, both Rambam and Ramban held him in very high regard, nonwithstanding Ramban's attacks on him.

[avakesh]

Here is a collection of sources on Ibn Ezra as seen by other rishonim, also from that avodah thread.:

Look at the mavo of the Yam Shel Shlomo on Bava kamma, 2nd page, 1st
column, 2/3 of the way down and see how the Ibn Ezra is described:
"min v'apikorsus". Look at Tosfot
Rosh Hashana 13a d"h d'akrivu; Taanit 20b d"h b'hachinto; Kiddushin
37b d"h Mi'mocharat hashabbat.

I add: Ramban, Intro to Torah, Rambam, Letter to his son in Igros Harambam (but may be forgery).

[DS]

Wow, I never knew that!
You mean to tell me that some of the things he said were highly controversial?
And this caused some Rabbonim to disparage him?
Amazing!

I guess that proves that Rav Aharon Lichtenstein would have dismissed the ibn Ezra as well! After all, if the Maharsha could speak in such a way, then surely Rav Aharon Lichtenstein would! I can just picture him piling on, right now as I write these words! It's so consistent with Rav Aharon's mehalech and his middos!

(How about if I tell you that the Ramban agrees with Ibn Ezra far more times than he agrees with Rashi, including where he feels that the ibn Ezra comes closest amongst all the commentators to understanding the "secret" of the korbanos?)

Hint: I think that you're writing utter nonsense here and should stick to the types of things that you know a bit more about. (I think you're WAY, WAY out of your depth with this post and that the Ramban would be the first one to slap you accross the face for the disrespect you're showing to the Ibn Ezra, who was one of the most influential of all Torah commentators --- EVER.

[avakesh]

I copied and pasted, and then lightly edited someone's else's comment without taking sufficient care to distinguish my views from his or moderate his tone more than I did. I did not quote the author of that comment because I also sensed that it was not respectful. I agree with you wholeheartedly. Ibn Ezra is a very important and basic commentator. I only note a fact, that others also noted, that his output is uneven, which has been attributed to writing under the pressures of travel and dislocations and also on order for patrons. The question is whether that my qualify him as an acharon in the era of rishonim, not whether he is very, very important and wholly deserving of our respect and study. The nafka minah is if we can argue. In as much as my comments could be perceived as disprespectful of this great Talmid Chacham, I apologize.

[anon]

the letter in which the rambam praises ibn ezra is a forgery

[anon]

the letter in which the rambam praises ibn ezra is a forgery

[Ariel]

"They are also consistent. Every shtickel of Rashbo, Rashi, Rambam possesses this characteristics. Not so with Acharonim. Some to a greater degree and others to a lesser degree, their writings contain forced interpretations, stretches, unappealing svoros and, rarely, actual errors. This is why one can argue on an achaaron but never on a rishon."

If you have really learned all the rishonim and achronim, in enough depth to know that what you say here is true, then you should be a rosh yeshiva somewhere. But somehow I am doubtful...

"What lead me to this view. I was trying to understand a statement that I heard in the name R. Aharon Lichtenstein, that "Ibn Ezra is not a rishon" (knowing the man I am pretty sure that it is an authentic representation of his views). Ruminating about this brought me to a realization that Ibn Ezra's commentary, full as it is of profound and remarkable thoughts, clearly possesses this characteristic of the Torah of acharonim, whereas Ramban's or Rashi's commentary does not."

Ruminating about the PERSON brought you to realizations about the COMMENTARY? Do you see no logical difficulties in that train of thought?

(Not to mention the questions of whether the quote is accurate, and whether is it being taken way out of context. Saying that the Ibn Ezra does not enter a count of "rov rishonim" on halachic matters is very different from saying that his biblical commentaries are inaccurate or heretical.)

[DS]

I apologize for being harsh and sarcastic.
However, I am no closer to understanding either the logic or the purpose of your posting.

I believe that several of your premises are flawed. The one that ticked me off the most was your belief that Rav Aaron Lichtenstein would join you in demoting the Ibn Ezra to present day Rabbi status simply because he did not write on talmud and was not a Rashi, Ramban, Rambam, or Rashba.

Ibn Ezra's is one of the five most important commentaries EVER written on Chumash. His focus is on narrative and peshat, not on halacha.

Let's compare apples to apples: Is his commentary less important or creative than those of Rashbam, Seforno Ralbag, or Radak? Are you demoting them from your pantheon as well?

Assuming that you would agree that as great as the above comentators are, that they are not as influential, broad, or commented upon as Ibn Ezra's?

Why isn't that enough?

[avakesh]

Thank you for your comments. I agree with you and I invite your to reread the post. If I did somehow expressed that idea, I will gladly edit the post so that it no longer is present within it.

I do withdraw the claim that R. Aharon said that Ibn Ezra is not a rishon. I remembered it as having been told to me by someone who now vehemently denies it.

[avakesh]

To Anon:
Not all roshei yeshiva teach. Some run blogs.

[avakesh]

Add: I have reedited the post so as to remove a quote from someone else, not from me, which may have caused some misunderstanding as to what my own point was.

[DS]

If your friend has backed off his "recollection," regarding Rav Aaharon, why is it still posted?

In fact, why is any of the posting still there?

It's silly, unscholarly, and disrespectful.

[avakesh]

Ok, you make a reasonable criticism and I will correct the citation from R. Aharon; however, I hope that you can address the main point, namely that what defines Rishon vs. Aharon is "makoriyut" and consistency in quality. I see that you are an individual who spends a great deal of time and effort on these issues. Please contribute to the discussion with sources or an argument. If you disprove that contention, I will be happy to delete the entire entry.

[DS]

I have nothing to contribute.

The issue is not what defines a Rishon vs what defines an Acharon, as these are artificial, semantic distictions that have consequence only within the field of halacha -- but not when it comes to aggada or parshanut.

That's a discussion that bears no interest for me.

What bothers me is having a blog discussion about whether the Ibn Ezra is all that important, as if we have the keylim to judge. Just think of your own casualness about posting hearsay from Rav Aharon that effectively denigrates two great Chachamim (both the Ibn Ezra and Rav Aharon).

[avakesh]

On the contrary, it is important in a system of thought that relies on authority to gain some perception of various standing of differetnt authorities. Granted, just as Aggadah is not rigidly defined, so the borders of authoritativenes in Aggada are not rigidly defined. However, without attempting to obtain some guidance on relative "authoritativeness" of different "thought leaders", your only recourse in dealing with disparate of contradictory sources is to fallback on the claim, "this is not our Masora". If everything is of equal weight, than nothing is of any weight. I am pretty sure that you would oppose either one of these two extremes, so how would you approach "rankiing" different positions, or should we give up on that, offer no guidance to those who are not able to come to independent conclusions, and use wholly subjective standards to what should guide us in practice, in which, as long as someone said it, I can hold it as well - as long as it conforms to my preconceptions?

I agree that the topic has been exhausted and and exhausting. Let's move on to other important questions.

[DS]

I don't know what "authoratative" means when we're talking about parshanut hamikra, excepting Rashi, Ramban, and Onkelos.