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 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 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. 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 (לעז) 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 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".‎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.¹⁴
• Pure exegete – According to some,¹⁵ Rashi's statement should be taken at face value. He brings Midrashic explanations only when they serve to answer a textual or conceptual question.¹⁶
• Also educator – Others disagree¹⁷ 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".‎¹⁸ 
• 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.¹⁹

Methods

• Selective use of Midrash – Rashi incorporates much Midrashic material into his commentary,²⁰  to the extent that it might even be termed a "Midrashic anthology".²¹ 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:²²
• At times, Rashi simply references a Midrash, without discussion.²³
• Sometimes Rashi cites a Midrash originally brought to elucidate a certain verse and uses it to explain a totally different verse.²⁴
• Rashi might refer to a Midrash in his comments to only one verse even though the original discussed more than one.²⁵
• Rashi may choose only one from several possible Midrashim on a verse.²⁶
• 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:
• Androgynous nouns – Rashi notes that many nouns might be treated as both masculine and feminine. See his comments to Rashi 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)²⁷ – Rashi notes many examples in which a verse is missing either a subject,²⁸ object,²⁹ part of the predicate,³⁰ or part of a conditional statement.³¹ In some cases he explicitly notes that the verse is a  "מקרא קצר", while in other cases he simply fills in the missing section.³²
• Way of the World (דרך ארץ) – Rashi often points to the realia of the time of Tanakh,³³ his own day,³⁴ or to general human behavior/modes of speech³⁵ to understand the actions of Biblical characters or the nature of unfamiliar objects, practices or terminology.
• Issues of Chronology
• ‎אין מוקדם ומאוחר בתורה‎‎³⁶ – Rashi often remarks when a story or verse is not recorded in its proper place,³⁷ noting that "אין מוקדם ומאוחר בתורה".‎³⁸   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.³⁹ In the vast majority of cases, Rashi is drawing off earlier Rabbinic sources who similarly claim achronology.⁴⁰
• 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).⁴¹  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".⁴²
• Character consolidation – Rashi often identifies anonymous⁴³ or lesser known Biblical figures with more well known characters⁴⁴ or figures with the same or similar names one with another.⁴⁵ 
  

Themes

• Love of the Nation and Land of Israel – This theme 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",‎⁴⁶ his defense of Yaakov for his deceit in taking the blessing,⁴⁷ his explanation of Rachel's jealousy⁴⁸ and stealing of her father's idols,⁴⁹ his explanation of Yehuda's marriage to a Caananite,⁵⁰ or his minimizing of Reuven's sin with Bilhah.⁵¹
• 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.⁵²
• 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,⁵³ or Vayikra 10:3 where Rashi presents Nadav and Avihu as holier than Moshe and Aharon.
• Negative attitude towards Gentiles – Rashi's commenatry 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.⁵⁴
• 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,⁵⁵ the importance of compassion for the disadvantaged, the need for humility and dangers of pride.⁵⁶
• Christian polemics

Textual Issues

• Manuscripts –
• At least 240 manuscripts of Rashi's Torah commentary are extant.⁵⁷ [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.⁵⁸ 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.⁵⁹ Most of these were collected and analyzed by Prof. Jordan Penkower,⁶⁰ 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 – 
• Teachers – 
• Foils – 

Occasional Usage

• –

Possible Relationship

• –

Impact

Later exegetes

• –

Supercommentaries

• –

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) which 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 joint 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 This assumes that the lemmas are original to Rashi and not the work of a later copyist.

⁹ Though this structure is so familiar that it seems somewhat standard, Prof. M. Lockshin, Rashi on the Torah: What Kind of Commentary Is It?, notes that the model  was not prevalent before Rashi's time, and it is possible that his novel exegetical structure served as an example which later exegetes imitated.  The structure is evident in his Talmudic commentary as well. There, too, this was somewhat of an innovation as Geonic works tended to serve as a paraphrase of the Gemara rather than a line by line commentary.

¹⁰ The relationship between Rashi and Ramban's Torah commentaries is analogous in many ways to the relationship between the Talmudic commentaries of Rashi and the Tosafists.

¹¹ There are more than 1300 French translations in Rashi's Tanakh commentary, though more research must be done to determine how many of these are original to Rashi and which might be additions of copyists.

¹² See also his introduction to Shir HaShirimShir HaShirim IntroductionAbout R. Shelomo Yitzchaki, 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 33:13Bereshit 3:8Bereshit 11:32Bereshit 49:22Shemot 6:9Shemot 23:2Shemot 33:13Bemidbar 9:1Yeshayahu 26:11Shir HaShirim IntroductionAbout R. Shelomo Yitzchaki, Yeshayahu 26:11Yeshayahu 26:11About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki and elsewhere, 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.

¹³ 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. In fact, many of the Midrashim known to the average layperson are familiar not because they have been studied in Tanchuma, Bereshit Rabbah or any other primary source, but via Rashi's commentary.

¹⁴ As will be seen below, 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.

¹⁵ 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"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.

¹⁶ 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.

¹⁷ 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". 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... 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  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, "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".

¹⁸ 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)

¹⁹ For several examples, see Bereshit 35:13, Shemot 22:28, 25:29, Devarim 33:24, Melakhim I 7:5 or Yechezkel 45:24.

²⁰ See above that G. Cohen, (cited above), estimates that about 70 percent of the commentary stems from Rabbinic sources.

²¹ 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.

²² In fact, one might even argue that one of Rashi's major contributions to Biblical exegesis was this reworking of Midrashic material.  Many of the examples below are taken from N. Leibowitz, "דרכו של רש"י בהבאת מדרשים בפירושו לתורה", cited above.

²³ See his comments to Rashi Bereshit 3:22, 3:24, 4:8, 5:1, 6:3, 19:15, 20:16, 27:41, 33:14, Shemot 13:17, 33:13, 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 as 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. It is possible that when Rashi knew that certain Midrashim would have been very familiar to his audience, he felt a need to note them.

²⁴ 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 to 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 to 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 to 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 to 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.

²⁵ 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 Avragham 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 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.

²⁶ Several examples are listed below:

• See Rashi Shemot 3:2 who cites just one of the many reasons brought by Mekhilta DeRashbi Shemot 3:13:1About Mekhilta DeRashbi Shemot to explain why Hashem might have appeared out of a "sneh" specifically.
• See Rashi on Bereshit 25:29 who explains that Esav was "tired" from killing, choosing this explanation over the others (that he had been engaged in theft or forbidden sexual relations) brought in Bereshit Rabbah 63:12 .

²⁷ 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.

²⁸ See his comments to Bereshit 9:6, 13:6, 29:2, 39:14, 41:49, 48:1-2, Bemidbar 21:29, 26:59 and 35:25.  Rashi explicitly refers to these as a "מקרא קצר" only in some instances.

²⁹ See, for example, Rashi on 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.

³⁰ See Rashi on Shemot 32:26 or Shemuel I 13:8

³¹ See, for instance, Rashi on Bereshit 4:15, Shemot 22:22-24, Shemot 32:32, and Shemuel II 5:8

³² 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.

³³ See, for example, Rashi Bereshit 14:24 (where he suggests that the custom to give booty not only to foot soldiers but also to those who simply guard was learned from Avraham to David), Rashi Bereshit 15:10 (where Rashi points out that Biblical covenant-making entailed walking through the split pieces of an animal), Rashi Bereshit 26:4 (where Rashi notes that Hashem's promise to Yitzchak, "וְהִתְבָּרְכוּ בְזַרְעֲךָ", is a prototype for the custom to bless progeny in the name of another) and Rashi Bereshit 24:28 (where Rashi notes the Biblical custom of women having their own workplace). See also Rashi Bereshit 24:55.

³⁴ See, for example, Rashi Shemot 28:4 where he compares the Efod to the driving costumes of women in Medieval France, or Rashi Shemot 28:41, where he explains the meaning of the term "מילוי ידים" in light of appointment ceremonies of his own time.

³⁵ See, for instance, Rashi on Bereshit 14:15, 21:15,24:2, 24:28, 24:67, 30:10, 34:14, 37:35, 41:42, 47:7, 47:10, 49:12, Shemot 6:9, 30:13, Bemidbar 13:30, Shofetim 8:11, Iyyov 1:7, 2:4.

³⁶ For a comprehensive analysis of Rashi's various comments regarding the ordering of Torah, see: י. גוטליב, יש סדר במקרא: חז"ל ופרשני ימי הביניים על מוקדם ומאוחר בתורה, (ירושלים, תשס"ט): 77-158.

³⁷ 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, Yechezkel 29:17, Tehillim 72:20.

³⁸ 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, though he does not use the formulation, "אין מוקדם ומאוחר", he notes that "it is the way of the text" to sometimes the switch the order.

³⁹ See Rashi Bereshit 11:32,Bereshit 3:8Bereshit 3:22Bereshit 3:24Bereshit 4:8Bereshit 4:15Bereshit 5:1Bereshit 6:3Bereshit 9:6Bereshit 11:32Bereshit 11:32Bereshit 13:6Bereshit 13:11Bereshit 14:15Bereshit 14:24Bereshit 15:10Bereshit 18:3Bereshit 19:15Bereshit 20:16Bereshit 22:2Bereshit 24:2Bereshit 24:28Bereshit 24:52Bereshit 24:55Bereshit 24:67Bereshit 26:4Bereshit 27:41Bereshit 29:2Bereshit 30:10Bereshit 32:9Bereshit 33:14Bereshit 34:14Bereshit 35:27Bereshit 35:29Bereshit 37:29Bereshit 37:35Bereshit 39:14Bereshit 41:1Bereshit 41:42Bereshit 41:49Bereshit 47:7Bereshit 47:10Bereshit 48:1-2Bereshit 49:12Bereshit 49:22Shemot 3:2Shemot 4:20Shemot 6:9Shemot 6:9Shemot 6:12Shemot 13:12Shemot 13:17Shemot 18:13Shemot 19:11Shemot 19:25Shemot 21:22Shemot 22:22-24Shemot 23:2Shemot 24:1Shemot 28:4Shemot 28:41Shemot 30:13Shemot 31:18Shemot 32:26Shemot 32:31Shemot 32:32Shemot 33:13Shemot 35:17Shemot 35:34Vayikra 8:2Vayikra 10:19Bemidbar 9:1Bemidbar 9:1Bemidbar 10:35Bemidbar 12:13Bemidbar 13:30Bemidbar 21:29Bemidbar 22:35Bemidbar 26:59Bemidbar 27:15Bemidbar 31:21Bemidbar 35:25Devarim 3:23Devarim 32:48Yehoshua 2:1Yehoshua 8:30Shofetim 8:11Shemuel I 1:9Shemuel I 13:8Shemuel II 5:8Melakhim I 3:3Yeshayahu 1:1Yeshayahu 26:11Yeshayahu 26:11Yeshayahu 35:9Yirmeyahu 26:1Yechezkel 1:3Yechezkel 2:9Yechezkel 16:43Yechezkel 29:17Chavakkuk 1:10Tehillim 8:8Tehillim 72:20Tehillim 116:11Iyyov 1:7Iyyov 2:4Shir HaShirim IntroductionShir HaShirim 2:7Eikhah 1:1Esther 1:18About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki 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 9:1Bereshit 3:8Bereshit 3:22Bereshit 3:24Bereshit 4:8Bereshit 4:15Bereshit 5:1Bereshit 6:3Bereshit 9:6Bereshit 11:32Bereshit 11:32Bereshit 13:6Bereshit 13:11Bereshit 14:15Bereshit 14:24Bereshit 15:10Bereshit 18:3Bereshit 19:15Bereshit 20:16Bereshit 22:2Bereshit 24:2Bereshit 24:28Bereshit 24:52Bereshit 24:55Bereshit 24:67Bereshit 26:4Bereshit 27:41Bereshit 29:2Bereshit 30:10Bereshit 32:9Bereshit 33:14Bereshit 34:14Bereshit 35:27Bereshit 35:29Bereshit 37:29Bereshit 37:35Bereshit 39:14Bereshit 41:1Bereshit 41:42Bereshit 41:49Bereshit 47:7Bereshit 47:10Bereshit 48:1-2Bereshit 49:12Bereshit 49:22Shemot 3:2Shemot 4:20Shemot 6:9Shemot 6:9Shemot 6:12Shemot 13:12Shemot 13:17Shemot 18:13Shemot 19:11Shemot 19:25Shemot 21:22Shemot 22:22-24Shemot 23:2Shemot 24:1Shemot 28:4Shemot 28:41Shemot 30:13Shemot 31:18Shemot 32:26Shemot 32:31Shemot 32:32Shemot 33:13Shemot 35:17Shemot 35:34Vayikra 8:2Vayikra 10:19Bemidbar 9:1Bemidbar 9:1Bemidbar 10:35Bemidbar 12:13Bemidbar 13:30Bemidbar 21:29Bemidbar 22:35Bemidbar 26:59Bemidbar 27:15Bemidbar 31:21Bemidbar 35:25Devarim 3:23Devarim 32:48Yehoshua 2:1Yehoshua 8:30Shofetim 8:11Shemuel I 1:9Shemuel I 13:8Shemuel II 5:8Melakhim I 3:3Yeshayahu 1:1Yeshayahu 26:11Yeshayahu 26:11Yeshayahu 35:9Yirmeyahu 26:1Yechezkel 1:3Yechezkel 2:9Yechezkel 16:43Yechezkel 29:17Chavakkuk 1:10Tehillim 8:8Tehillim 72:20Tehillim 116:11Iyyov 1:7Iyyov 2:4Shir HaShirim IntroductionShir HaShirim 2:7Eikhah 1:1Esther 1:18About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki where he 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.

⁴⁰ 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.

⁴¹ For a comprehensive analysis of this theory of primary meanings and how Rashi was a pioneer in promoting the idea, see Dr. R. Steiner, "Saadia vs. Rashi: On the Shift from Meaning-Maximalism to Meaning-Minimalism in Medieval Biblical Lexicology", The Jewish Quarterly Review, New Ser., 88: 3/4 (1998),  213-258.

⁴² See, for instance, Rashi on Bereshit 22:2, 41:1, Shemot 6:12, Shemot 13:12, Vayikra 10:19, Yechezkel 16:43, Chavakkuk 1:10, or Tehillim 116:11.

⁴³ For example, Rashi identifies the refugee from war 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 Yitchak 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 Ovadia (Melakhim II 4:1).

⁴⁴ See, for example, his identification of Yiskah and Sarah (Bereshit 11:29), 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), Chovav, Reuel and others with Yitro (Shemot 18:1), Moshe's Cushite wife and Tzipporah (Bemidbar 12:1-4),  the judge Ivzan and Boaz (Shofetim 12:8), and Lemuel with Shelomo (Mishlei 31:1).

⁴⁵ 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).

⁴⁶ See Bereshit 15:8.

⁴⁷ See Bereshit 27:19.

⁴⁸ See Bereshit 30:1.

⁴⁹ See Rashi Bereshit 31:19 and Rachel's Stealing of the Terafim.

⁵⁰ See Bereshit 38:2 and Did Yaakov's Sons Marry Canaanites.

⁵¹ See Rashi Bereshit 35:22 and Reuven and Bilhah.

⁵² See Rashi Bereshit 21:9 and 25:27-32.  For elaboration, see Banishment of Hagar and Yishmael and Sale of the Birthright – A Fair Deal.

⁵³ See also Bereshit 14:7, 24:10 and 32 about Avraham's similar concerns.

⁵⁴ See also his depiction of Efron as one who "says a lot but does little" (Bereshit 23:16).

⁵⁵ 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 tzara'at 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.

⁵⁶ See his comments to Bereshit 19:22, 22:1, Vayikra 14:35, 16:34, and Bemidbar 19:22.

⁵⁷ See the list compiled by D. Blondheim, "Liste des Manuscrits des Commentaires bibliques de Raschi", REJ 91 (1931): 71-101, 155-174.

⁵⁸ 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 1לשחזור הנוסח המקורי של פירוש רש"י לתורה — תשובה  לאברהם גרוסמן", Tarbiz 62 (1993): 297-303, and Grossman responds in the later articles above.

⁵⁹ By many, the scribe R. Makhir writes "כך כתב ר' שמעיה", noting that the attribution is not his own, but that of R. Shemayah himself.

⁶⁰ See his articles "הגהות רש"י לפירושו לתורה", JSIJ 6 (2007): 1-48 and "הגהות נוספות של רש"י לפירושו על התורה", in אור למאיר (Beer Sheva, 2010): 363-409.