Commentators:R. Shelomo Yitzchaki (Rashi)/0

R. Shelomo Yitzchaki (Rashi)

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

See also: Rashi's Torah Commentary

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

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 for most of his life in Troyes, 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 daughter⁵. 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 – 
  • –
• 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.
• 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.
• Analysis of Grammar and language –
• 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 to 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".‎⁸   As even a quick glance at Rashi's commentary betrays that much of it stems from Midrashic sources,⁹ Rashi's super-commentaries 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 was simply to explicate the text or also to instill morals in his readers.¹⁰
• According to some,¹¹ Rashi's statement should be taken at face value. He brings derashic explanations only when they serve to answer a textual or conceptual question.¹²
• Others disagree¹³ suggesting that sometimes Rashi will incorporate midrashim only for their pedagogic value, even when there is no textual difficulty.¹⁴ 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.
• 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 37:2, who famously says of his grandfather: " והודה לי שאילו היה לו פנאי היה צריך לעשות פרושים אחרים לפי הפשטות המתחדשים בכל יום".‎¹⁵ 

Methods

• Selective use of Midrash – 
• Way of the text (דרכי המקראות) – In explaining linguistic or grammatical anomalies, Rashi will often note that these are simply "the way of the text" and not really difficult forms at all. Several examples follow:
• Androgynous nouns – Rashi notes that many nouns might be treated as both masculine and feminine. See his comments to 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 to Bereshit  35:7
• Truncated Verses (מקרא קצר)¹⁶ – Rashi notes many examples in which a verse is missing either a subject,¹⁷ object,¹⁸ part of the predicate,¹⁹ or part of a conditional statement.²⁰ In some cases he explicitly notes that the verse is a  "מקרא קצר", while in other cases he simply fills in the missing section.²¹
• Way of the World (דרך ארץ) – Rashi often points to the realia of the time of Tanakh, his own day, or people's behavior in general to explain the actions or manner of speech of Biblical characters.
• Issues of Chronology
• אין מוקדם ומאוחר בתורה – Rashi often note that a story or verse is not recorded in its proper place,²² noting that "אין מוקדם ומאוחר בתורה".‎^{23 24} 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 two places which he does, he offers a homiletical reason rather than a literary one.²⁵ In many cases, Rashi is drawing off earlier Rabbinic sources who similarly claim achronology.²⁶
• סמיכות פרשיות –
• Omnisignificance –
• Identifying Anonymous Characters –
  

Themes

• Love of Am Yisrael – 
• Defense of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs
• Negative Attitude Towards Gentiles
• Christina Polemics
• –

Textual Issues

• Manuscripts – 
• Printings – 
• Textual layers – 

Sources

Significant Influences

• Earlier Sources – 
• Teachers – 
• Foils – 

Occasional Usage

• –

Possible Relationship

• –

Impact

Later exegetes

• –

Super-commentaries

• –

¹ Maharshal in Responsum #29 states that Rashi was born in year 4800 (1039-1040). A. Grossman (חכמי צרפת הראשונים, pg. 122), however, cites manuscripts (MS Jerusalem 3616, MS Zurich Heid. 145 p. 71v) who date Rashi's birth to year 4801 (1040-1041), and explains the Maharshal's date, as well as the age at death of 65 (mentioned in various sources), to be round numbers.

² This date, Thursday, 29 Tammuz 4865, is found in the colophons of a number of manuscripts of Rashi’s commentary on Torah (MS Casanatense 2848, MS Parma 3115), in addition to a number of other early sources (including MS Moscow 109 p. 73).

³ Rachel is mentioned in a responsa written by R. Tam (Sefer HaYashar Teshuvot #25) to his cousin R. Yom Tov, referring to their join aunt Rachel ("מרת רחל דודתנו"), who had been divorced.

⁴ Sefer HaNeyyar (Hilkhot Chol HaMoed pg. 110) mentions Rashi mourning for his daughter during Chol HaMoed.

⁵ This granddaughter of Rashi was the mother of R. Yitzchak b. Shemuel, known as ר"י הזקן.

⁶ Rashi's commentaries on Ta'anit, Nedarim, Nazir, Bava Batra (from 29b onward), and Makkot (from 20a onward) have not survived.

⁷ These responsa were collected mainly from the works of Rashi's students.

⁸ See also his introduction to Shir HaShirimShir HaShirim IntroductionAbout R. Shelomo Yitzchaki, and his comments to Bereshit 49:22Bereshit 49:22About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki, Shemot 6:9Bereshit 3:8Bereshit 49:22Shemot 6:9Shemot 23:2Yeshayahu 26:11Shir HaShirim IntroductionAbout R. Shelomo Yitzchaki, Shemot 23:2Shemot 23:2About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki, Shemot 33:13, Yeshayahu 26:11Yeshayahu 26:11About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki and more where he writes similarly.  In such statements, Rashi appears to be saying that his main goal is to explain the simple sense of scripture, and that he will incorporate Midrashic material only if it helps achieve that goal and is harmonious with the verses.  From the collected comments above, it seems that he means that the Midrash must accord with the language, grammar, order and context of the verses.

⁹ See G. Cohen, "פרשנות המדרשית במפעלה התורני של נחמה", Pirkei Nechama: Sefer Zikkaron LeNechama Leibowitz (Jerusalem, 2001): 96, who estimates that about 70 percent of Rashi's commentary stems from Rabbinic sources.

¹⁰ As will be seen below, the issue is intrinisically 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.

¹¹ See David Pardo's super-commentary on Rashi, Maskil LeDavid on Vayikra 5:17 who writes, "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"יבהבאת 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.

¹² 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,

¹³ Among Rashi's super-commentaries, 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". [See also  his comments to ]  Beer Yitzchak Bereshit 37:14 similarly notes that Rashi does not always aim to address a textual difficulty when birnging a Midrash, writing: "לא מהכרח הכתבוים דרש".  See also R"A Bakrat 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  who asserts that Rashi sometimes brings midrashic material due to religious polemics or for its moral messages. He writes, "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 מאדץ השאלה המפורסמת שהייתה אהובה כל כך על נחמה, מה קשה לרש"י, מתאימה לרבים מן פירושיו, אך לא לכולם".

¹⁴ For example,

¹⁵ See also Ibn Ezra, more negatively:  "והדורות הבאים שמו כל דרש עיקר ושרש כרב שלמה ז"ל שפירש התורה, נביאים וכתובים, על דרך דרש והוא חושב  כי הוא על דרך פשט, ואין בספריו פשט רק אחד מני אלף ..." (שפה ברורה, מהדורת מ' וילנסקי (ירושלים, תשל"ח): 64)

¹⁶ See נ. אליקים, "מקרא קצר כמידת פרשנית בפרשנות רש"י", מורשת יעקב ז' (תשנ"ג): 24-39 who collects and categorizes the many cases where Rashi deals with the phenomenon.

¹⁷ See his comments to Bereshit 9:6, 13:6 29:2, 39:14, 41:49, 48:1-2, Bemidbar 8:4,  21:29, 26:59 and 35:25.  Rashi explicitly refers to these as a "מקרא קצר" only in some instances.

¹⁸ See, for example, Shemot 19:25 and Esther 1:18.  In these cases the verses mention that someone says something, but the content of their speech is missing.

¹⁹

See Shemot 32:26 or Shemuel I 13:8.

²⁰ See, for instance, Bereshit 4:15,Shemot 22:22-24, Shemot 32:32, and Shemuel II 5:8.

²¹ N. Elyakim (cited above) suggests that in many of these cases it is possible that Rashi did not view the verse as a true "מקרא קצר" as the missing section is easily filled in from the context of the verse.

²² He will suggest this about both individual verses (or even clauses) and entire stories or prophecies.  See his comments to Bereshit 6:3, 11:32, 18:2-3, 35:29, Shemot 4:20, 18:13, 19:11 and 24:1, 31:18, Vayikra 8:2, Bemidbar 9:1, 10:35, Yehoshua 2:1, Yehoshua 8:30, Melakhim I 3:3, Yeshayahu 1:1, Yirmeyahu 26:1,Yechezkel 1:3, 29:17, Tehillim 72:20.

²³ Rashi does not explicitly mention the rule in every instance in which he applies it.  He does so in his comments to Bereshit 6:3, 35:29, Shemot 4:20, 19:11, 31:18, Vayikra 8:2 and Bemidbar 9:1 (in a slightly different formulation).  In the Prophets he uses  variations of "אין מוקדם ומאוחר בספר" in Yehoshua 8:30, Yeshayahu 1:1, Yechezkel 1:3 and 29:17 and Tehillim 72:20.  Elsewhere, he notes the achronology without  noting that it is part of a more general pattern. In one instance, Bereshit 18:3, he notes that "it is the way of the text" to sometimes the switch the order.

²⁴ At times, too, he posits acholonology only according to a specific Midrashic understanding of a verse.  See, for instance, his comments to Bereshit 18:3. 

²⁵ See Rashi Bereshit 11:32, where he explains that the verses tell of Terach's death before Avraham's departure to Cannan, to obscure the fact that Avraham left his father in old age, lest anyone claim that Avraham was lax in his respect for his father. See also Rashi Bemidbar 9 where Rashi explains that Sefer Bemidbar does not open chronologically, with the observance of Pesach in the second year in the Wilderness, so as not to highlight that this was he only time n the forty years that the law was observed. In both cases, Rashi's suggests that the Torah's goal is to ensure that our ancestor's good names not be besmirched.

²⁶ At times, too, he posits acholonology only according to a specific Midrashic understanding of a verse.  See, for instance, his comments to Bereshit 18:3.