Difference between revisions of "Commentators:R. Shelomo Yitzchaki (Rashi)/0"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
See also: Rashi's Torah Commentary
m |
m |
||
| Line 131: | Line 131: | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
| − | <li><b>‎אין מוקדם ומאוחר בתורה‎‎</b><fn>For a comprehensive analysis of Rashi's various comments regarding the ordering of Torah, see Y. Gottlieb, "יש סדר במקרא: חז"ל ופרשני ימי הביניים על מוקדם ומאוחר בתורה" (Jerusalem, 2009):</fn> – Rashi often remarks when a story or verse is not recorded in its proper place,<fn>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, 18:3, 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.</fn> noting that "אין מוקדם ומאוחר בתורה".‎<fn>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 the Prophets he uses the slightly different formulation of "אין מוקדם ומאוחר בספר" in Yehoshua 8:30, Yeshayahu 1:1, Yechezkel 1:3 and 29:17 and Tehillim 72:20.  Elsewhere, Rashi mentions the achronology without noting that it is part of a more general pattern. [He will use language such as, "אין פרשה זו כתובה כסדר", "פרשה זו נאמרה קודם" and the like.  In one instance, Bereshit 18:3, he notes that "it is the way of the text" to sometimes the switch the order.]</fn> 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 | + | <li><b>‎אין מוקדם ומאוחר בתורה‎‎</b><fn>For a comprehensive analysis of Rashi's various comments regarding the ordering of Torah, see Y. Gottlieb, "יש סדר במקרא: חז"ל ופרשני ימי הביניים על מוקדם ומאוחר בתורה" (Jerusalem, 2009):</fn> – Rashi often remarks when a story or verse is not recorded in its proper place,<fn>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, 18:3, 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.</fn> noting that "אין מוקדם ומאוחר בתורה".‎<fn>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 the Prophets he uses the slightly different formulation of "אין מוקדם ומאוחר בספר" in Yehoshua 8:30, Yeshayahu 1:1, Yechezkel 1:3 and 29:17 and Tehillim 72:20.  Elsewhere, Rashi mentions the achronology without noting that it is part of a more general pattern. [He will use language such as, "אין פרשה זו כתובה כסדר", "פרשה זו נאמרה קודם" and the like.  In one instance, Bereshit 18:3, he notes that "it is the way of the text" to sometimes the switch the order.]</fn> 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 which he does, he offers a homiletical reason rather than a literary one.<fn>See Rashi Bereshit 11:32, where he explains that the verses tell of Terach's death before Avraham's departure to Canaan 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 the only time n the forty years that the law was observed. In both cases, Rashi suggests that the Torah's goal is to ensure that our ancestor's good names not be besmirched.</fn> In the vast majority of cases, Rashi is drawing off earlier Rabbinic sources who similarly claim achronology.<fn>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.</fn></li> |
<li><b>סמיכות פרשיות</b> –</li> | <li><b>סמיכות פרשיות</b> –</li> | ||
</ul> | </ul> | ||
Version as of 08:11, 29 March 2021
R. Shelomo Yitzchaki (Rashi)
This page is a stub.
Please contact us if you would like to assist in its development.
Please contact us if you would like to assist in its development.
| 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 –
- 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).8 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".9
- 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".10 As even a quick glance at Rashi's commentary betrays that much of it stems from Midrashic sources,11 Rashi's super-commentaries and modern scholars debate how to read Rashi's statement and to what extent he achieved the stated goal.12
- Pure exegete – According to some,13 Rashi's statement should be taken at face value. He brings derashic explanations only when they serve to answer a textual or conceptual question.14
- Also educator – Others disagree15 suggesting that sometimes Rashi will incorporate midrashim only for their pedagogic value, even when there is no textual difficulty.16 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 37:2, who famously says of his grandfather: " והודה לי שאילו היה לו פנאי היה צריך לעשות פרושים אחרים לפי הפשטות המתחדשים בכל יום".17
Methods
- Selective use of Midrash – Rashi incorporates much Midrashic material into his commentary,18 to the extent that it might even be termed a "Midrashic anthology".19 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:20
- At times, Rashi simply references a Midrash, without discussion.21
- Sometimes Rashi cites a Midrash originally brought to elucidate a certain verse and uses it to explain a totally different verse.22
- Rashi might refer to a Midrash in his comments to only one verse even though the original discussed more than one.23
- Rashi may choose only one from several possible Midrashim on a verse.24
- Often too, Rashi will rework a Midrash or combine several into one explanation.
- 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 35:27.
- Truncated Verses (מקרא קצר)25 – Rashi notes many examples in which a verse is missing either a subject,26 object,27 part of the predicate,28 or part of a conditional statement.29 In some cases he explicitly notes that the verse is a "מקרא קצר", while in other cases he simply fills in the missing section.30
- Way of the World (דרך ארץ) – Rashi often points to the realia of the time of Tanakh,31 his own day,32 or to general human behavior/modes of speech33 to understand the actions of Biblical characters or the nature of unfamiliar objects, practices or terminology.
- Issues of Chronology
- אין מוקדם ומאוחר בתורה34 – Rashi often remarks when a story or verse is not recorded in its proper place,35 noting that "אין מוקדם ומאוחר בתורה".36 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 which he does, he offers a homiletical reason rather than a literary one.37 In the vast majority of cases, Rashi is drawing off earlier Rabbinic sources who similarly claim achronology.38
- סמיכות פרשיות –
- Omnisignificance –
- Character consolidation – Rashi often identifies anonymous39 or lesser known Biblical figures with more well known characters40 or figures with the same or similar names one with another.41
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.42
- 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,43 the importance of compassion for the disadvantaged,44 the need for humility and dangers of pride.45
- Christian Polemics
- –
Textual Issues
- Manuscripts –
- Printings –
- Textual layers –
Sources
Significant Influences
- Earlier Sources –
- Teachers –
- Foils –
Occasional Usage
- –
Possible Relationship
- –
Impact
Later exegetes
- –
Super-commentaries
- –
