R. Shelomo Yitzchaki (Rashi)

Rashi
Name	Rashi, R. Shlomo Yitzchaki, רש"י, ר' שלמה יצחקי
Dates	1040 – 1105
Location	France
Works	Commentaries on Tanakh and Talmud, Sifrut Debei Rashi
Exegetical Characteristics
Influenced by	R. Yaakov ben Yakar, R. Yitzchak HaLevi, R. Yitzchak ben Yehuda
Impacted on	Everyone

This page is a stub.
Please contact us if you would like to assist in its development.

See also: Rashi's Torah Commentary

Background

Life

Name – R. Shelomo b. Yitzchak (ר' שלמה בן יצחק), of which Rashi (רש"י) is an acronym.
Dates – c. 1040¹ – July 13, 1105.²
Location – Rashi lived in Troyes for most of his life, although he studied in both Mainz and Worms.
Occupation –
Family – Rashi’s uncle, the brother of his mother, was ר' שמעון הזקן, a student of R. Gershom. Rashi had four daughters: Yocheved, Miriam, Rachel,³ and a daughter who died during Rashi's lifetime.⁴ Yocheved married R. Meir b. Shemuel, and had four sons (Rashbam, R. Tam, R. Yitzchak, and Shelomo) and one daughter.⁵ Miriam married R. Yehuda b. Natan (Rivan), and had a son named R. Yom Tov.
Teachers – Rashi studied at Mainz under R. Yaakov b. Yakar, and following R. Yaakov's death in 1064, he learned under R. Yitzchak b. Yehuda. He then moved to Worms, and studied under R. Yitzchak HaLevi. All of his teachers were students of R. Gershom.
Contemporaries –
Students – R. Yosef Kara, Rashi's son-in-law R. Yehuda b. Natan, Rashi’s grandsons Rashbam and R. Tam, his secretary R. Shemayah, R. Simcha MiVitri.
Time period – Rashi lived during the First Crusades.
World outlook –

Works

Biblical commentaries – Rashi wrote commentaries on all of Tanakh.
Rabbinics
- Talmudic commentaries – Rashi wrote commentaries on most, if not all,⁶ of the tractates of the Talmud Bavli.
- Halakhic codes – Rashi did not write any halakhic codes himself. However, his students did author a number of halakhic works based on his teachings, including Machzor Vitri, Siddur Rashi, Sefer HaPardes, Sefer HaOreh, and others.
- Responsa – In modern times, some of Rashi's surviving responsa were collected into a single work.⁷
Piyyutim – Rashi wrote a number of piyyutim. Although we don't know of any commentaries on piyyutim that Rashi wrote himself, his exegesis was incorporated into R. Shemayah's commentaries on the piyyutim.
Misattributed works – Commentaries on the end of Iyyov (from Iyyov 40:25 onward), Ezra, Nechemyah, and Divrei HaYamim; Commentaries on Moed Katan, Ta'anit, Nedarim, Nazir, and Horayot.

Torah Commentary

Characteristics

Verse by verse / Topical – Rashi's Torah commentary is a local, verse by verse commentary, marked by its succinct and clear style. Rashi comments on a selection of phrases in almost every verse, providing the lemma (citation from the verse)⁸ and then a gloss.⁹ As his units of study are small, he tends not to focus on structural issues or comparisons of parallel stories. This stands in contrast to commentaries like that of Ramban, which are much broader in scope and might address several verses at once.¹⁰
Language of the commentary – Rashi wrote his commentary in Hebrew. When explaining difficult Biblical words, he often translates them into French to aid his audience.¹¹

Peshat and derash – Rashi lays out his attitude towards peshat and derash in a number of programmatic statements, perhaps the most important being his comments on Bereshit 3:8, where he writes: " יש מדרשי אגדה רבים... ואני לא באתי אלא לפשוטו של מקרא, לאגדה המישבת דברי המקרא, ופשוטו ושמועתו, דבר דבור על אופני".‎¹² As even a quick glance at Rashi's commentary betrays that much of it stems from Midrashic sources,¹³ Rashi's supercommentaries and modern scholars debate how to read Rashi's statement and to what extent he achieved the stated goal. The issue is intrinsically related to another question, whether Rashi's purpose in writing his commentary was purely to explicate the text, or also to instill moral values in his audience.

Pure exegete – According to some,¹⁴ Rashi's statement should be taken at face value. He brings Midrashic explanations only when they serve to answer a textual or conceptual question.¹⁵
Also educator – Others disagree¹⁶ suggesting that sometimes Rashi will incorporate Midrashim only for their pedagogic value, even when there is no textual difficulty. Rashi's goal was not only to explain the text but to educate his audience to proper values, combat Christian claims, and give an oppressed people hope.
Did not go far enough – It is also possible that Rashi aimed to explain the text according to "פשוטו של מקרא", but did not totally achieve his goal. See Rashbam Bereshit 37:2Bereshit 37:2About R. Shemuel b. Meir, who famously says of his grandfather: " והודה לי שאילו היה לו פנאי היה צריך לעשות פרושים אחרים לפי הפשטות המתחדשים בכל יום".‎¹⁷

Humility – Rashi's commentary betrays his humility. He writes "איני יודע" over a dozen times, noting how he does not know what a certain word means, a verse comes to teach, or how a rabbinic source reached its conclusions.¹⁸

Methods

Selective use of Midrash – Rashi incorporates much Midrashic material into his commentary,¹⁹ to the extent that it might even be termed a "Midrashic anthology".²⁰ Rashi's goal, however, is clearly not to simply collect and preserve such material, as he is extremely selective in what he chooses to incorporate, moving, combining, and reworking Midrashim for his purposes:²¹

At times, Rashi simply references a Midrash, without discussion.²²
Sometimes Rashi cites a Midrash originally brought to elucidate a certain verse and uses it to explain a totally different verse.²³
Rashi might refer to a Midrash in his comments on only one verse even though the original discussed more than one.²⁴
Rashi may choose only one from several possible Midrashim on a verse.²⁵
Often too, Rashi will rework a Midrash or combine several into one explanation.

Way of the text (דרכי המקראות) – In explaining linguistic or grammatical apparent anomalies, Rashi will often note that these are simply "the way of the text" and not really difficult forms at all. Several examples follow:

Dual gendered nouns – Rashi notes that many nouns might be treated as both masculine and feminine. See his comments on Bereshit 32:9, Shemot 35:17, Shemuel I 1:9, Yeshayahu 35:9, Yechezkel 2:9.
ה' הידיעה in a double name – Rashi explains that when a name has two parts (such as Beit El or Kiryat Arba), it is the second word which takes the definite article. See his comments on Bereshit 35:27.
Truncated Verses (מקרא קצר)²⁶ – Rashi notes many examples in which a verse is missing either a subject,²⁷ object,²⁸ part of the predicate,²⁹ or part of a conditional statement.³⁰ In some cases he explicitly notes that the verse is a "מקרא קצר", while in other cases he simply fills in the missing section.³¹

Way of the World (דרך ארץ) – Rashi often points to the realia of the time of Tanakh,³² his own day,³³ or to general human behavior and modes of speech³⁴ to understand the actions of Biblical characters or the nature of unfamiliar objects, practices, or terminology.
Issues of Chronology

‎אין מוקדם ומאוחר בתורה‎‎³⁵ – Rashi often remarks when a story or verse is not recorded in its proper place,³⁶ noting that "אין מוקדם ומאוחר בתורה".‎³⁷ He generally explains the difficulty in the verses which leads him to such conclusions, but only rarely explains why Tanakh chose to veer from the proper order. In the few places in which he does, he offers a homiletical reason rather than a literary one.³⁸ In the vast majority of cases, Rashi is drawing off earlier Rabbinic sources who similarly claim achronology.³⁹
סמיכות פרשיות –

Omnisignificance –
Analysis of grammar and language

Meaning-minimalist – When defining words, Rashi tends to assume that each root has only one basic meaning (from which any other contextual meanings are derived).⁴⁰ This is evident in his oft-used formulas, "every occurrence of the term "x" has the meaning "y" or "the word "x" means nothing other than "y".⁴¹

Character consolidation – Rashi often identifies anonymous⁴² or lesser known Biblical figures with more well known characters⁴³ or figures with the same or similar names one with another.⁴⁴

Themes

Love of the Nation and Land of Israel – This theme is prevalent throughout the commentary. For example, in his first comment on four of the five books of Torah, Rashi mentions Hashem's love for the nation.
Positive portrayal of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs –

Defense – Rashi consistently attempts to explain away apparent faults or sins of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs.

Often he will reinterpret the apparent misdeed. For instance, see his understanding of Avraham's apparent lack of faith in questioning, "במה אדע כי אירשנה",‎⁴⁵ his defense of Yaakov for his deceit in taking the blessing,⁴⁶ his explanation of Rachel's jealousy⁴⁷ and stealing of her father's idols,⁴⁸ his explanation of Yehuda's marriage to a Canaanite,⁴⁹ or his minimizing of Reuven's sin with Bilhah.⁵⁰
At times, too, Rashi defends the Patriarchs not by minimizing their deeds, but by aggravating the sins of others. For example, see his justifying of Sarah's banishment of Yishmael and Yaakov's buying of the birthright by depicting both Yishmael and Esav as grave sinners.⁵¹

Praise – Rashi also emphasizes positive evaluations or behavior not explicit in the text.

For example, see Bereshit 18:1 where Rashi highlights Avraham's love of guests, Bereshit 25:27 where he describes Yaakov's learning of Torah, Bereshit 47:21 where he praises Yosef's economic policies, Shemot 3:1 regarding Moshe's concerns to prevent theft,⁵² or Vayikra 10:3 where Rashi presents Nadav and Avihu as holier than Moshe and Aharon.

Negative attitude towards Gentiles – Rashi's commentary often betrays a negative attitude towards Gentiles:

Biblical characters – See Rashi's negative portrayal of Lot (Bereshit 13:7-14, 18:4, 19:16), Yishmael (16:12, 21:9,14, 17), Esav (Bereshit 25:27-34, 26:34, 30:22, 31:12, 32:11-12, 35:8, 36:2), and Bilam.⁵³
Gentiles at large – See Rashi on Bereshit 15:10 (on how other nations will be destroyed), Shemot 7:3 (on the inability of idolators to sincerely repent) Bemidbar 27:17 (on the difference between the willingness of Israelite and foreign kings to take the lead in battle).

Educating towards values – Rashi's commentary includes many lessons for his readers. Some themes which appear repeatedly include: the evils of slander or gossip,⁵⁴ the importance of compassion for the disadvantaged, the need for humility and dangers of pride.⁵⁵
Christian polemics

Textual Issues

Manuscripts –

At least 240 manuscripts of Rashi's Torah commentary are extant.⁵⁶ [For a list of those available online, see here.] There is significant variation between these manuscripts as medieval scholars and copyists often added their own marginal glosses to the text. This makes it difficult to determine which sections are original to Rashi and which are merely later accretions.
As such, probably the most important manuscript of Rashi's commentary is Leipzig 1 (Universitätsbibliothek Leipzig, B.H.1), written in the 13th century by R. Makhir b. Karshavyah. The scribe states that he produced it from a copy of the commentary transcribed and annotated by Rashi's own secretary, R. Shemayah, making it an extremely valuable textual witness which comes very close to the original source.⁵⁷ R. Makhir not only copied Rashi's base commentary from R. Shemayah's manuscript, but he also reproduced many of the marginal glosses contained in R. Shemayah's text, a good number of which R. Shemayah explicitly attributes to Rashi himself. For further discussion and to see the digitized text and images of the manuscript, see Leipzig 1.

Printings –
Textual layers – As mentioned above, there are many layers to Rashi's commentary as both Rashi and others, including his scribe R. Shemayah and his student and colleague, R" Kara, updated the text.

Rashi's own glosses – Many glosses in the Leipzig 1 manuscript are marked ר' (רבי) or מ"ר (מפי רבי), clearly attributing them to Rashi himself.⁵⁸ Most of these were collected and analyzed by Prof. Jordan Penkower,⁵⁹ who categorizes them into several groups, including: (1) additions based on Rabbinic literature (2) linguistic and lexicographic clarifications (3) elaboration on the original comment (4) additional French glosses. A comprehensive database of all of the various additions to Rashi's commentary is currently being assembled here.
Glosses of R. Shemayah – See Additions of R. Shemayah.
Glosses of R"Y Kara – See Additions of R"Y Kara

–

Sources

Significant Influences

Earlier Sources – Rashi made wide use of earlier sources including:

Targum Onkelos – Rashi mentions Onkelos by name around 75 times in his Torah commentary,⁶⁰ and explicitly refers to the Targum using language such as:‏"תרגום" ,"ותרגומו" ⁶¹,"כתרגומו" ‏‏‎, "מתרגמין"‎⁶² etc. over 260 other times. In addition, there are occasions where he adopts Onkelos' understanding⁶³ or cites the Aramaic translation found in the Targum, but with no explicit reference.⁶⁴
Bereshit Rabbah – Rashi cites Bereshit Rabbah by name 46 times in his Torah commentary⁶⁵ and another 24 times in his commentary on the rest of Tanakh.
Machberet Menachem – Rashi cites Machberet Menachem by name twenty⁶⁶ times in Torah,⁶⁷ though he appears to be relying on the Machberet in other interpretations as well.⁶⁸ In his commentary on the rest of Tanakh, Rashi cites Menachem close to another 200 times.
Dunash b. Librat – Dunash is cited by name twice in Rashi's commentary on Torah (Shemot 28:28, Bemidbar 11:8) and close to 40 more times in his comments on the rest of Tanakh
Midreshei Halakhah –

Teachers –
Foils –

Occasional Usage

–

Possible Relationship

–

Impact

Later exegetes

–

Supercommentaries

–

¹⁴ See David Pardo's supercommentary on Rashi, Maskil LeDavid, on Vayikra 5:17, "וידוע הוא שאין דרכו של רש"י בפירושו לאתויי ממילי דאגדתא אלא מה שצריך להבנת הכתוב ומה שמתיישב בו המקרא דיבור על אופניו. ואין עוד מלבדו". Among modern scholars, Nechama Leibowitz most famously takes this position, writing, "ונראה שניתן להוכיח... שהבאת מדרשים ובחירתם בפירושו לכל התורה לא היתה אלא לצורך פרשני לבד ולא לשם קישוט דברי תורה בפניני חז"ל" [See N. Leibowitz, "דרכו של רש"י בהבאת מדרשים בפירושו לתורה", Iyyunim Chadashim BeSefer Shemot (Jerusalem, 1970): 503]. According to her, Rashi is a pure exegete whose sole goal is to explicate the Biblical text. It is to this end only that he brings Midrashim, not to relay moral lessons or sermons.

¹⁵ Every time that Rashi cites a Midrash, this school will question "what is bothering Rashi", attempting to find the difficulty in the verse which the Rabbinic material is coming to address, even if it not apparent at first glance. See, for instance, S. Gelbard, "אגדה מיישבת מקרא", Pirkei Nechama: Sefer Zikkaron LeNechama Leibowitz (Jerusalem, 2001): 177-186, who brings many cases where the textual difficulty in a verse is not readily apparent, and attempts to show what problem Rashi is nonetheless addressing. He notes several categories of difficulties, including: internal conceptual inconsistencies, doublings or superfluous information, grammatical anomalies, issues of order and context, gaps or missing details, and stylistic inconsistencies. According to this school, even if Rashi's answers sometimes seem detached from the simple sense of Scripture, they are attempting to answer a textual or conceptual, "peshat" question.

¹⁶ Among Rashi's supercommentaries, see R"E Mizrachi Bereshit 12:1, who notes that even when the verse's language does not call for it, Rashi might bring a Midrashic explanation "דהיכא דאיכא למידרש דרשינן". Be'er Yitzchak Bereshit 37:14 similarly notes that Rashi does not always aim to address a textual difficulty when bringing a Midrash, writing: "לא מהכרח הכתבוים דרש... רק שלפי האמת כן הוא". See also R"A Bokrat Devarim 13:9, who suggests that when Rashi writes "ואני ליישב פשוטו של מקרא באתי" this refers only to the specific verse upon which he is commentating; it is not a description of his methodology as a whole.
Among modern scholars, see A. Grossman, "פולמוס דתי ומגמה חינוכית בפירוש רש"י לתורה", Pirkei Nechama: Sefer Zikkaron LeNechama Leibowitz (Jerusalem, 2001): 187-205, who asserts that Rashi sometimes brings Midrashic material due to religious polemics or for its moral messages, rather than to address a textual difficulty. He writes (p.204 there), "לא רק מטרות פרשניות טהורות הינחו את רש"י... הנחתו הבסיסית של רש"י היא, שמאחר שמטרת התורה היא לחנך לאמונה בה' וקיום מצוותיו, חייב המפרש להשתלב במגמה זו ולא להסתפק בפירוש בלבד....במקרים שהדרשה נראית חיונית מן הבחינה החינוכית, יש להביאה גם אם הקשר בינה ובין לשון הכתובים רופף מאד. השאלה המפורסמת שהייתה אהובה כל כך על נחמה, מה קשה לרש"י, מתאימה לרבים מן פירושיו, אך לא לכולם".

²⁰ See Y. Eisenstat, "Rashi's Midrashic Anthology: The Torah Commentary Re-Examined", PhD diss. (The Jewish Theological Seminary, 2014), who discusses the anthological nature of Rashi's commentary and how its form matches similar Medieval anthologies. Eisenstat stresses the difference between a "collection" and an "anthology", noting that the latter involves strict selection, and discusses some of the principles that might have guided Rashi's choices. Cf.Nechama Leibowitz, עיונים חדשים בספר שמות (Jerusalem, 1970): 50, who asserts that the many cases in which Rashi will refer to a Midrash but not cite or paraphrase it, instead sending the reader to various Midrashic collections, proves that Rashi did not view his own commentary as such an anthology ("לא התכוון רש"י לתת בפירשו לקט מדרשים").

²² See his comments on Rashi Bereshit 3:8, 3:22, 3:24, 4:8, 5:1, 6:3, 12:3, 19:15, 20:16, 33:14, Shemot 13:17, 33:13, Bemidbar 6:24, Yeshayahu 26:11, Tehillim 8:8, Shir HaShirim 2:7, and Eikhah 1:1. N. Leibowitz (ibid) suggests that in cases such as these, Rashi dismisses the Midrash since it does not fit with the context of the verses. As such, he often follows the reference with statements such as: "ואין מיושבין על פשוטו" or "ואני ליישב המקראות באתי", effectively saying that the Midrash does not correlate with the simple sense of the verses. It is not clear, however, why Rashi does not simply ignore the Midrash altogether in these cases. See נ. אליקים, "רמזים למדרשים בפירושי רש"י לתורה, מורשת י"ב", who suggests that Rashi might allude to such Midrashim since they incorporate important lessons and foundational ideas, be it regarding man's relationship to God, his fellow, or other nations. It is also possible that when Rashi knew that certain Midrashim would have been very familiar to his audience, he felt a need to note them.

²³ Several examples follow:

Rashi references the Midrash brought by Bereshit Rabbah 60:638:741:760:684:1584:19About Bereshit Rabbah on Bereshit 24:26 (regarding learning from Avraham's servant to express gratitude after success) in his comments on Bereshit 24:52 (rather than on verse 26). Apparently Rashi felt that the message is more logical in the later verse, when the servant's mission was truly accomplished.
Rashi quotes from Bemidbar Rabbah 20:120:12About Bemidbar Rabbah, "בדרך שאדם רוצה לילך בה מוליכין אותו" in his comments on Bemidbar 22:35, rather than on Bemidbar 22:20 where the Midrash had written the statement. Though in both verses Bilam is told to "go" (and permitted to do as he desired), it is only after verse 35 that he no longer faces any obstacles or attempts at dissuasion.
Rashi speaks of the verse's comparing of Betzalel and Oholiav in his comments on Shemot 35:34, whereas Tanchuma Ki Tisa 13Ki Tisa 13About the Tanchuma does so on Shemot 38:23. Perhaps, since only in Shemot 35:34 does the language of the verse (הוּא וְאׇהֳלִיאָב) call to equate the two in stature, Rashi mentions the fact there.
Bavli BerakhotBerakhot 32aAbout Bavli Berakhot learns from Devarim 1:1, "ודי זהב" that Moshe defended the nation for sinning with the Calf by blaming Hashem for giving them too much gold. Rashi speaks of this not in his comments on Devarim, but rather on Shemot 32:31. This is likely due to the fact that he thinks the tone of Devarim 1 is one of rebuke and not defense.
On Bereshit 37:29Bereshit 3:8Bereshit 3:22Bereshit 3:24Bereshit 4:8Bereshit 4:15Bereshit 5:1Bereshit 6:3Bereshit 9:6Bereshit 11:32Bereshit 13:6Bereshit 14:15Bereshit 14:24Bereshit 15:10Bereshit 19:15Bereshit 20:16Bereshit 22:2Bereshit 24:28Bereshit 24:52Bereshit 26:4Bereshit 27:41Bereshit 29:2Bereshit 32:9Bereshit 33:14Bereshit 35:27Bereshit 37:29Bereshit 39:14Bereshit 41:1Bereshit 41:49Bereshit 48:1-2Bereshit 49:22Shemot 3:2Shemot 4:20Shemot 6:9Shemot 6:12Shemot 13:12Shemot 13:17Shemot 19:25Shemot 21:22Shemot 22:22-24Shemot 23:2Shemot 28:4Shemot 28:41Shemot 32:26Shemot 32:31Shemot 32:32Shemot 33:13Shemot 33:13Shemot 35:17Shemot 35:34Vayikra 10:19Bemidbar 9:1Bemidbar 12:13Bemidbar 21:29Bemidbar 22:35Bemidbar 26:59Bemidbar 27:15Bemidbar 31:21Bemidbar 35:25Devarim 3:23Devarim 32:48Shemuel I 1:9Shemuel I 13:8Shemuel II 5:8Yeshayahu 26:11Yeshayahu 26:11Yeshayahu 35:9Yechezkel 2:9Yechezkel 16:43Chavakkuk 1:10Tehillim 8:8Tehillim 116:11Shir HaShirim IntroductionShir HaShirim 2:7Eikhah 1:1Esther 1:18About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki, Rashi brings two reasons to explain Reuven's absence during the sale of Yosef (that he had gone to serve his father or that he was fasting and praying to repent of his sin with Bilhah). In Bereshit Rabbah 84:1538:741:760:684:1584:19About Bereshit Rabbah and 84:1938:741:760:684:1584:19About Bereshit Rabbah, only the second reason (Reuven's repenting) is connected to the verse and sale, while the first reason (that he left to serve his father) is connected, instead, to Bereshit 37:21 (וַיִּשְׁמַע רְאוּבֵן). It is possible that Rashi found no textual difficulty in verse 21 and no reason to assume that Reuven was absent at that point, leading him to use the explanation only later.

²⁴ Several examples follow:

Bereshit Rabbah 38:738:741:760:684:1584:19About Bereshit Rabbah and 41:738:741:760:684:1584:19About Bereshit Rabbah – Whereas Bereshit Rabbah brings the explanation "הסיע עצמו מקדמונו של עולם" to explain the phrase "וַיְהִי בְּנׇסְעָם מִקֶּדֶם" (or "וַיִּסַּע לוֹט מִקֶּדֶם") in both Bereshit 11:2 and Bereshit 13:11, Rashi mentions the explanation only on 13:1.
Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer 31 – The Midrash identifies the donkey on which Avraham rode to the Akeidah (Bereshit 22:3), with that which Moshe rode from Midyan to Egypt (Shemot 4:20) and that which the Mashiach will arrive upon (Zekharyah 9:9). Rashi brings the identification in Shemot but nowhere else.
Sifre Bemidbar 31:21 – Though the Midrash mentions three places in which Moshe's anger leads him to err (Vayikra 10:16, Bemidbar 20:10 and Bemidbar 31:21), Rashi only cites the Midrash in Bemidbar 31:21.
Sifre Bemidbar 12:1312:1331:21About Sifre Bemidbar – The Midrash mentions four places in which Moshe demands of Hashem to know whether his prayer has been answered or not. Rashi brings the Midrash only in three of the four places (Bemidbar 12:13, Bemidbar 27:15, Devarim 3:23 but not Shemot 6:12)
Sifre Devarim 32:4832:48About Sifre Devarim– The Midrash notes three occurrences of the phrase "בעצם היום הזה" (Bereshit 7:13, Shemot 12:51, and Devarim 32:48), explaining why Hashem made each event occur in mid-day. Rashi, however, mentions the Midrash only in his comments on Devarim.

It is possible that in each of these instances Rashi only found one of the verses difficult or thought that the Midrash only fit the context of certain verses but not others.

⁴² For example, Rashi identifies the refugee from war who tells Avraham of Lot's capture with Og (Bereshit 14:13), the youth who helps Avraham prepare for his guests with Yishmael (Bereshit 18:7), the two youths who accompany Avraham to the Akeidah with Yishmael and Eliezer (Bereshit 22:3), Avraham's servant who went to find a wife for Yitzchak with Eliezer (Bereshit 24:39-42, where this is simply assumed), Yosef's interpreter with Menashe (Bereshit 42:23), the tale-bearers in Shemot 2:13 and those who leave over from the manna in Shemot 16:20 with Datan and Aviram, the youth who tells Moshe of Eldad and Meidad's prophesying with Gershom (Bemidbar 11:27), the straw gatherer with Tzelophchad (Bemidbar 27:3), the creditor who bothers the wife of one of "בני הנביאים" with King Yehoram, and her husband with Ovadyah (Melakhim II 4:1).

⁵⁷ For the importance of this fact for reconstructing the original text of Rashi, see Prof. Avraham Grossman's extensive discussions in: "הגהות ר' שמעיה ונוסח פירוש רש"י לתורה", Tarbiz 60 (1991): 67-98, "‏כתב-יד לייפציג 1 ופירושו של רש"י לתורה (תגובה למאמרו של אלעזר טויטו)‏", Tarbiz 61 (1992): 305-315, "‏עוד לטיבו של כתב-יד לייפציג 1 (תגובה למאמרו של אלעזר טויטו)‏", Tarbiz 62 (1993): 621-624, and חכמי צרפת הראשונים (Jerusalem, 1995): 187-193, 359-366.
Prof. E. Touitou argues against some of Grossman's conclusions in "האמנם משקף כתב־יד לייפציג 1את הנוסח המקורי של פירוש רש״י לתורה?", Tarbiz 61 (1992): 85-116 and "תרומתו האפשרית של כ"י לייפציג 1 לשחזור הנוסח המקורי של פירוש רש"י לתורה — תשובה לאברהם גרוסמן", Tarbiz 62 (1993): 297-303, and Grossman responds in the later articles above.