Difference between revisions of "Commentators:R. Shelomo Yitzchaki (Rashi)/0"

From AlHaTorah.org
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
m
Line 87: Line 87:
 
<ul>
 
<ul>
 
<li>According to some,<fn>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". &#160;<br/>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].&#160; According to her, Rashi is a pure exegete whose sole goal is to explicate the Biblical text.&#160; It is to this end only that he brings Midrashim,&#160; not to relay moral lessons or sermons.</fn> Rashi's statement should be taken at face value. He brings derashic explanations only when they serve to answer a textual or conceptual question.<fn>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.&#160; 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 / superfluous information, grammatical anomalies, issues of order and context, gaps or missing details, and stylistic inconsistencies.</fn></li>
 
<li>According to some,<fn>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". &#160;<br/>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].&#160; According to her, Rashi is a pure exegete whose sole goal is to explicate the Biblical text.&#160; It is to this end only that he brings Midrashim,&#160; not to relay moral lessons or sermons.</fn> Rashi's statement should be taken at face value. He brings derashic explanations only when they serve to answer a textual or conceptual question.<fn>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.&#160; 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 / superfluous information, grammatical anomalies, issues of order and context, gaps or missing details, and stylistic inconsistencies.</fn></li>
<li>Others disagree<fn>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&#160; his comments to ]&#160; 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".&#160; 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.<br/>Among modern scholars, see A. Grossman&#160; 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".</fn> suggesting that sometimes Rashi will incorporate midrashim only for their pedagogic value, even when there is no textual difficulty.<fn>For example,</fn> 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.</li>
+
<li>Others disagree<fn>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&#160; his comments to ]&#160; 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".&#160; 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.<br/>Among modern scholars, see A. Grossman&#160; 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 מאד. השאלה המפורסמת שהייתה אהובה כל כך על נחמה, מה קשה לרש"י, מתאימה לרבים מן פירושיו, אך לא לכולם".</fn> suggesting that sometimes Rashi will incorporate midrashim only for their pedagogic value, even when there is no textual difficulty.<fn>For example,</fn> 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.</li>
 
<li>It is also possible that Rashi aimed to explain the text according to "פשוטו של מקרא", but did not totally achieve his goal.&#160; 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".&#8206;<fn>See also Ibn Ezra, more negatively:&#160; "והדורות הבאים שמו כל דרש עיקר ושרש כרב שלמה ז"ל שפירש התורה, נביאים וכתובים, על דרך דרש והוא חושב &#160;כי הוא על דרך פשט, ואין בספריו פשט רק אחד מני אלף ..." (שפה ברורה, מהדורת מ' וילנסקי (ירושלים, תשל"ח): 64)</fn>&#160;</li>
 
<li>It is also possible that Rashi aimed to explain the text according to "פשוטו של מקרא", but did not totally achieve his goal.&#160; 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".&#8206;<fn>See also Ibn Ezra, more negatively:&#160; "והדורות הבאים שמו כל דרש עיקר ושרש כרב שלמה ז"ל שפירש התורה, נביאים וכתובים, על דרך דרש והוא חושב &#160;כי הוא על דרך פשט, ואין בספריו פשט רק אחד מני אלף ..." (שפה ברורה, מהדורת מ' וילנסקי (ירושלים, תשל"ח): 64)</fn>&#160;</li>
 
</ul>
 
</ul>
Line 109: Line 109:
 
</ul>
 
</ul>
 
<li><b>Omnisignificance –</b></li>
 
<li><b>Omnisignificance –</b></li>
<li><b>Character consolidation </b>– Rashi often identifies anonymous or lesser known Biblical figures with more well known characters<fn>See, for example, his identification of Yiskah and Sarah (Bereshit 11:29), Og with the refugee from war (Bereshit 14:13), Malkitzedek and Shem (Bereshit 14:18), Keturah with Hagar (Bereshit 25:1), Shimon's wife and Dina (Bereshit 46:10), Shifra and Puah with Yocheved and Miryam (Shemot 1:15) Datan and Aviram as the tale-bearers in Shemot 2:13 and those who leave over from the manna in Shemot 16:20, Yitro with Chovav, reuel and others (Shemot 18:1), Moshe's Cushit wife and Tzipoporah (Bemidbar 12:1-4),&#160; the judge Ivzan and Boaz (Shofetim 12:8), and Shelomo with Lemuel (Mishlei 31:1).</fn> or figures with the same or similar names one with another.<fn>See, for instance, the identification of Potiphar with Potiphera (Bereshit 41:45), Yoel the son of Shemuel with the prophet Yoel (Yoel 1:1), Ovadia, the steward of Achav with the prophet of the same name (Ovadiah 1:1), Daniel of Yechezkel 14 with Daniel of the Book of Daniel (Yechezkel 14:14).</fn>&#160; <b><br/></b></li>
+
<li><b>Character consolidation </b>– Rashi often identifies anonymous or lesser known Biblical figures with more well known characters<fn>See, for example, his identification of Yiskah and Sarah (Bereshit 11:29), Og with the refugee from war (Bereshit 14:13), Malkitzedek and Shem (Bereshit 14:18), Keturah with Hagar (Bereshit 25:1), Shimon's wife and Dina (Bereshit 46:10), Shifra and Puah with Yocheved and Miryam (Shemot 1:15) Datan and Aviram as the tale-bearers in Shemot 2:13 and those who leave over from the manna in Shemot 16:20, Yitro with Chovav, Reuel and others (Shemot 18:1), Moshe's Cushite wife and Tzipporah (Bemidbar 12:1-4),&#160; the judge Ivzan and Boaz (Shofetim 12:8), and Shelomo with Lemuel (Mishlei 31:1).</fn> or figures with the same or similar names one with another.<fn>See, for instance, the identification of Potiphar with Potiphera (Bereshit 41:45), Yoel the son of Shemuel with the prophet Yoel (Yoel 1:1), Ovadia, the steward of Achav with the prophet of the same name (Ovadiah 1:1), Daniel of Yechezkel 14 with Daniel of the Book of Daniel (Yechezkel 14:14).</fn>&#160; <b><br/></b></li>
 
</ul>
 
</ul>
 
</ul>
 
</ul>
Line 118: Line 118:
 
<li><b>Positive portrayal of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs</b> –</li>
 
<li><b>Positive portrayal of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs</b> –</li>
 
<ul>
 
<ul>
<li>Defense – Rashi consistently attempts to defend the Patriarchs and Matriarchs, explaining away apparent faults or sins.&#160;</li>
+
<li><b>Defense</b> – Rashi consistently attempts to explain away apparent faults or sins of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs.&#160;</li>
 
<ul>
 
<ul>
<li>For instance, see his understanding of Avraham's apparent lack of faith in questioning, "במה אדע כי אירשנה", his defense of Yaakov for his role in taking the blessing (), his explanation of Rachel's jealousy and stealing of her father's idols, or his minimizing of Reuven's sin with Bilhah.</li>
+
<li>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", his defense of Yaakov for his role in taking the blessing (), his explanation of Rachel's jealousy and stealing of her father's idols, or his minimizing of Reuven's sin with Bilhah.</li>
 
<li>At times, too, Rashi defends the Patriarchs not by minimizing their deeds, but by aggravating the sins of others.&#160; 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.</li>
 
<li>At times, too, Rashi defends the Patriarchs not by minimizing their deeds, but by aggravating the sins of others.&#160; 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.</li>
 
</ul>
 
</ul>
<li>Praise&#160;– Rashi also emphasizes positive behavior not explicit in the text.</li>
+
<li><b>Praise</b>&#160;– Rashi also emphasizes positive evaluations or behavior not explicit in the text.</li>
 
<ul>
 
<ul>
<li>For example, see</li>
+
<li>For example, see Vayikra 10:3 - presenting Nadav and Avihu as holier than Moshe and Aharon, </li>
 
</ul>
 
</ul>
 
</ul>
 
</ul>
 
<li><b>Negative Attitude Towards Gentiles&#160;</b>–</li>
 
<li><b>Negative Attitude Towards Gentiles&#160;</b>–</li>
 
<ul>
 
<ul>
<li>See Rashi's negative portrayal of Lot (Bereshit 13:7-14, 18:4, 19:16), Yishmael (16:12, 21:9,14, 17), Esav (), Bilam.</li>
+
<li>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 (), Bilam.</li>
 
<li>even smaller figures are&#160; for .&#160; See Rashi's accusation that efron "says a lot but does little" (Bereshit 23:16)</li>
 
<li>even smaller figures are&#160; for .&#160; See Rashi's accusation that efron "says a lot but does little" (Bereshit 23:16)</li>
 +
<li>Gentiles at large</li>
 
</ul>
 
</ul>
 
<li><b>Educating towards values </b>– Rashi's commentary includes many lessons for his readers. Some themes which appear repeatedly include: the evils of slander or gossip,<fn>See Rashi on Bereshit 37:2 (where Rashi emphasizes that Yosef's slandering of his brothers was the cause of his later troubles) Shemot 2:14 (where Rashi has Moshe justify the nation's suffering as being deserved punishment for slander), Shemot 4:3-8 (where Rashi has Hashem chastise Moshe for speaking ill against the nation), Vayikra 13:46 and 14:4 (where Rashi explains that<i> tzara'at</i> is punishment for slander specifically. See also Rashi's comments to Bemidbar 13:2, 21:6, 33:18, Devarim 22:13, 24:9 and 27:24.</fn> the importance of compassion for the disadvantaged,<fn>See Rashi's comments to Shemot 22:24 (where Rashi highlights the need to treat the poor with dignity and the importance of empathy), Vayikra 1:7-8, 17 (where he emphasizes that in Hashem's eyes the worth of a person is unrelated to their economic status), Vayikra 23:35 (where Rashi teaches the importance of helping someone before they fall so low that it is difficult to get back on one's feet), Devarim 16:11 (where Rashi emphasizes Hashem's special relationship with the disadvantaged), and Devarim 24:14, 17 (where Rashi notes that Torah views defrauding a pauper more severely than doing the same to others). [The examples brought here are taken from Dr. A. Rock, "<a href="https://www.etzion.org.il/en/lecture-6b-rashi-part-iii-moral-and-educational-philosophy-rashi-continued">The Moral and Educational Philosophy of Rashi</a>".<br/>&#160;"</fn> the need for humility and dangers of pride.<fn>See his comments to Bereshit 19:22, 22:1, Vayikra 14: 35, 16:34, and Bemidbar 19:22 .</fn></li>
 
<li><b>Educating towards values </b>– Rashi's commentary includes many lessons for his readers. Some themes which appear repeatedly include: the evils of slander or gossip,<fn>See Rashi on Bereshit 37:2 (where Rashi emphasizes that Yosef's slandering of his brothers was the cause of his later troubles) Shemot 2:14 (where Rashi has Moshe justify the nation's suffering as being deserved punishment for slander), Shemot 4:3-8 (where Rashi has Hashem chastise Moshe for speaking ill against the nation), Vayikra 13:46 and 14:4 (where Rashi explains that<i> tzara'at</i> is punishment for slander specifically. See also Rashi's comments to Bemidbar 13:2, 21:6, 33:18, Devarim 22:13, 24:9 and 27:24.</fn> the importance of compassion for the disadvantaged,<fn>See Rashi's comments to Shemot 22:24 (where Rashi highlights the need to treat the poor with dignity and the importance of empathy), Vayikra 1:7-8, 17 (where he emphasizes that in Hashem's eyes the worth of a person is unrelated to their economic status), Vayikra 23:35 (where Rashi teaches the importance of helping someone before they fall so low that it is difficult to get back on one's feet), Devarim 16:11 (where Rashi emphasizes Hashem's special relationship with the disadvantaged), and Devarim 24:14, 17 (where Rashi notes that Torah views defrauding a pauper more severely than doing the same to others). [The examples brought here are taken from Dr. A. Rock, "<a href="https://www.etzion.org.il/en/lecture-6b-rashi-part-iii-moral-and-educational-philosophy-rashi-continued">The Moral and Educational Philosophy of Rashi</a>".<br/>&#160;"</fn> the need for humility and dangers of pride.<fn>See his comments to Bereshit 19:22, 22:1, Vayikra 14: 35, 16:34, and Bemidbar 19:22 .</fn></li>

Version as of 04:55, 15 March 2021

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
Dates1040 – 1105
LocationFrance
WorksCommentaries on Tanakh and Talmud, Sifrut Debei Rashi
Exegetical Characteristics
Influenced byR. Yaakov ben Yakar, R. Yitzchak HaLevi, R. Yitzchak ben Yehuda
Impacted onEveryone

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.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,22 his own day,23 or to general human behavior/modes of speech24 to understand the actions of Biblical characters or the nature of unfamiliar objects, practices or terminology.
  • Issues of Chronology
      • ‎אין מוקדם ומאוחר בתורה‎‎25 – Rashi often remarks when a story or verse is not recorded in its proper place,26 noting that "אין מוקדם ומאוחר בתורה".‎27 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.28 In the vast majority of cases, Rashi is drawing off earlier Rabbinic sources who similarly claim achronology.29
      • סמיכות פרשיות
    • Omnisignificance –
    • Character consolidation – Rashi often identifies anonymous or lesser known Biblical figures with more well known characters30 or figures with the same or similar names one with another.31 

Themes

  • Love of the Nation and Land of Israel – This themes is prevalent throughout the commentary. For example, in his first comment to 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", his defense of Yaakov for his role in taking the blessing (), his explanation of Rachel's jealousy and stealing of her father's idols, or his minimizing of Reuven's sin with Bilhah.
      • 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.
    • Praise – Rashi also emphasizes positive evaluations or behavior not explicit in the text.
      • For example, see Vayikra 10:3 - presenting Nadav and Avihu as holier than Moshe and Aharon,
  • 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 (), Bilam.
    • even smaller figures are  for .  See Rashi's accusation that efron "says a lot but does little" (Bereshit 23:16)
    • Gentiles at large
  • Educating towards values – Rashi's commentary includes many lessons for his readers. Some themes which appear repeatedly include: the evils of slander or gossip,32 the importance of compassion for the disadvantaged,33 the need for humility and dangers of pride.34
  • Christina Polemics

Textual Issues

  • Manuscripts – 
  • Printings – 
  • Textual layers – 

Sources

Significant Influences

  • Earlier Sources – 
  • Teachers – 
  • Foils – 

Occasional Usage

Possible Relationship

Impact

Later exegetes

Super-commentaries