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

From AlHaTorah.org
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
m
Line 93: Line 93:
 
<li><b>Pure exegete</b> – According to some,<fn>See David Pardo's super-commentary 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".&#160; 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 or superfluous information, grammatical anomalies, issues of order and context, gaps or missing details, and stylistic inconsistencies.</fn></li>
 
<li><b>Pure exegete</b> – According to some,<fn>See David Pardo's super-commentary 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".&#160; 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 or superfluous information, grammatical anomalies, issues of order and context, gaps or missing details, and stylistic inconsistencies.</fn></li>
 
<li><b>Also educator</b> – 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". Beer 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".&#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><b>Also educator</b> – 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". Beer 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".&#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><b>Did not go far enough</b> – 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><b>Did not go far enough</b> – 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 <multilink><a href="RashbamBereshit37-2" data-aht="source">Rashbam Bereshit 37:2</a><a href="RashbamBereshit37-2" data-aht="source">Bereshit 37:2</a><a href="R. Shemuel b. Meir (Rashbam)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel b. Meir</a></multilink>, 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>
 
</ul>
 
</ul>

Version as of 13:15, 29 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 –
    • 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 37:2Bereshit 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 

Methods

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",‎42 his defense of Yaakov for his deceit in taking the blessing,43 his explanation of Rachel's jealousy44 and stealing of her father's idols,45 or his minimizing of Reuven's sin with Bilhah.46
      • 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.47
    • Praise – Rashi also emphasizes positive evaluations or behavior not explicit in the text.
      • For example, see Bereshit 18:1 where Rashi speaks of Avraham's love of guests,  Bereshit 25:27 where he describes Yaakov's learning of Torah, Shemot 3:1 regarding Moshe's concerns to prevent theft, or Vayikra 10:3 where Rashi presents 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 (Bereshit 25:27-34), Bilam.48
    • Gentiles at large – Bereshit 15:10 (how other nations will be destroyed), Shemot 7:3 on the inability of idolators to sincerely repent, Bemidbar 27:17 (on the difference between Israelite and foreign kings)
  • Educating towards values – Rashi's commentary includes many lessons for his readers. Some themes which appear repeatedly include: the evils of slander or gossip,49 the importance of compassion for the disadvantaged,50 the need for humility and dangers of pride.51
  • Christian Polemics
  • –

Textual Issues

  • Manuscripts – 
  • Printings – 
  • Textual layers – 

Sources

Significant Influences

  • Earlier Sources – 
  • Teachers – 
  • Foils – 

Occasional Usage

  • –

Possible Relationship

  • –

Impact

Later exegetes

  • –

Super-commentaries

  • –
Retrieved from "http://alhatorah.org/w/index.php?title=Commentators:R._Shelomo_Yitzchaki_(Rashi)/0&oldid=73710&useskin=vector"