Commentators:R. Shemuel b. Meir (Rashbam)/0

R. Shemuel b. Meir (Rashbam)

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

CAUTION: THIS TOPIC HAS NOT YET UNDERGONE EDITORIAL REVIEW

Rashbam

Name	R. Shemuel b. Meir ר' שמואל בן מאיר, רשב"ם
Dates	1085-1174
Location	France
Works	Tanakh and Talmud commentaries
Exegetical Characteristics
Influenced by	Rashi, his father R. Meir
Impacted on	R. Eliezer of Beaugency, R. Yosef Bekhor Shor

Background

Life

• Name – 
  • Hebrew name – R. Shemuel b. Meir (ר' שמואל בן מאיר), of which Rashbam (רשב"ם) is an acronym.
• Dates – c.1085¹ – c.1174.²
• Location – Rashbam lived in cities in Northern France including Troyes, Ramerupt, Paris, Caen, and Loudun.³
• Occupation – Rashbam had a flock of ewes, which provided milk and wool.⁴
• Family – Rashbam was the grandson of Rashi⁵ and the son of R. Meir.⁶ His brothers were R. Yitzchak and R. Tam. He had a daughter Marona and perhaps a son Yosef.⁷
• Teachers – 
• Contemporaries – 
• Students – 
• Time period
  • –

Works

• Biblical commentaries – Rashbam wrote a commentary on most or all of Tanakh. See below regarding his Torah commentary.⁸ Commentaries of Rashbam on Tehillim, Iyyov, Kohelet, and Shir HaShirim have recently been published, but his authorship of these works is disputed. Citations from Rashbam's commentaries on Neviim and Ketuvim also survived in the Arugat HaBosem of R. Avraham b. Azriel and in some Northern French commentaries.
• Grammar – 
• Rabbinics – 
  • Talmudic novellae – Rashbam wrote commentaries on the tenth chapter of Pesachim and on Bava Batra 29a through the end⁹ in order to complete missing sections of Rashi's commentary. In addition Rashbam wrote commentaries on Eiruvin,¹⁰ Gittin,¹¹ Bava Kama,¹² other sections of Bava Batra,¹³ and Niddah¹⁴ which are not extant, but are cited by other commentaries.
  • Halakhic codes – 
  • Responses to the works of others – 
  • Responsa – 
• Jewish thought – 
• Commonly misattributed to Rashbam – 

Torah Commentary

Textual Issues

• Manuscripts – Rashbam's commentary on Torah survived only in one manuscript, MS Breslau 103, and even this manuscript was lost during the Holocaust. This manuscript was missing the first three Parashot of Sefer Bereshit, Parashat Pinechas, and Devarim 33:3 through the end.¹⁵ Rashbam's commentary on Bereshit 1 was discovered by A. Geiger in MS Munich 5, and it is now incorporated in most printed editions. In 1882, D. Rosin published a critical edition based on MSS Breslau 103 and Munich 5. Rashbam's commentary on part of Devarim 34 was published by M. Sokolow in 1984 from MS Oxford 34.  Regarding the reconstruction of the missing portions of Rashbam's commentary, see Rashbam's Torah Commentary.
• Printings – The commentary was printed for the first time in 1705 in Berlin.
• Long and short commentaries – 
• The writing process – 
• Rashbam's later updates – 

Characteristics

• Verse by verse / Topical – Rashbam, like his grandfather, Rashi, before him, wrote a verse by verse commentary.  He focuses on textual and conceptual issues rather than philosophical ones. Nonetheless, he saw the entire text as one integrated unit, searching for Biblical parallels and noting "ways of the text".¹⁶
• Genre – 
• Structure – 
• Peshat and Derash – Rashbam repeatedly asserts¹⁷ that even though the halakhic and midrashic level of interpretation is the most essential one,¹⁸ his goal is to explain the simple sense of Scripture.¹⁹  In this, he saw himself as a pioneer, often noting that his predecessors did not reach a full understanding of "פשוטו של מקרא",‎²⁰ and that even those who attempted to do so, did not go far enough.²¹ Rashbam's "peshat" exegesis is exemplified on the one hand by his refusal to look outside the text to Midrashim to explain difficulties, fill in missing details, or to identify the unknown, and by his intrascriptural exegesis (using context, biblical parallels, or "דרכי המקראת") on the other.²² 
• Peshat vs. Midreshei Aggadah – Though Rashbam will rarely incorporate such Midrashim into his commentary (as they are not anchored in the text),²³ he did not view these as false, writing, "כל דברי רבותינו ודרשותיהם כנים ואמתים"‎.²⁴ 
• Peshat vs. Midreshei Halakhah – At times, Rashbam will explain a verse according to its simple sense, even when this contradicts a halakhah.²⁵  Perhaps the most well known instance is his explanation of Shemot 13:9.  The verse is commonly understood to refer to the command to don phylacteries, yet Rashbam writes that it is simply a call to remember the Exodus, as if it were written on one's arm.²⁶

Methods

• Programmatic statements – Though Rashbam does not write an introduction to his commentary where he lays out his methodology, in several of his comments he hints to it,²⁷ most notably in his conclusion to Devarim 34, where he writes, "הרי פירושו לפי הפסוקים... ודרך ארץ ודבר חכמה".  Rashbam's commentary is marked by intrascriptural exegesis, and an eye to realia and logic.
• Intra-scriptural exegesis – This is exemplified by:
• דרכי המקראות –
• Literary Anticipation (הקדמות) – This principle assumes that certain statements appear in the text not because they are needed at that point in the narrative, but rather to prepare the reader for what is to come. Rashbam introduces and explains the theory in his comments to Bereshit 1:1. Though he is not the first to apply the principle, he develops the idea²⁸ and takes it further than his predecessors. His most radical application is the suggestion that the entire creation narrative serves merely to introduce the commandment to keep the Shabbat.²⁹

Themes

• – 

Sources

Significant Influences

• Earlier Sources – 
• Teachers – 
• Foils – 

Occasional Usage

• –

Possible Relationship

• –

Impact

Later exegetes

• –

Supercommentaries

• –

¹ We do not know the exact date of Rashbam's birth. The approximation of 1085 is based on the fact that he argued with Rashi (See Rashbam's commentary on Bereshit 37:2), might have even ruled Halakha in front of him (Mordekhai Sanhedrin 702), and possibly Rashi learned from his interpretations (R. Chaim Paltiel Bereshit 49:22). Since Rashi died in 1105, the assumption is that Rashbam must have been born at least 20 years earlier to argue with him.

² The date of Rashbam's death is also unknown. Sefer HaYuchsin v.5 (p.218) gives a date of 4935 (1174/75) which would make Rashbam 90 when he died, but the basis for this is unknown. D. Rosin rejects the date, and says instead that Rashbam died after 1158, since he is hinted to in Ibn Ezra's Iggeret HaShabbatIggeret HaShabbatAbout R. Avraham ibn Ezra, in the words of "ולא תשא פני איש". Assuming Ibn Ezra is responding to Rashbam's commentary, then it seems Rashbam was still alive in 1158.

³ In MS Ginsburg Rashbam writes that in 1130 he was in Ramerupt, and E. Urbach suggest he left Troyes to there after Rashi died. R. Tam in Sefer HaYashar Teshuvot 41 writes that Rashbam is not with him in Ramerupt, rather in Caen. Rashbam himself also mentions that he was asked a question in Loudun (Rashbam Bemidbar 30:2), and in Paris (Rashbam Bemidbar 11:35, Or Zarua 1:476).

⁴ See Shibbolei HaLeket 2:33: "ראיתי רבנו תם ז"ל שהקפיד על רבנו שמואל זצ"ל, שהיו לו רחלות הנה {צ"ל: הרבה} רחוקות קצת מן העיר ועומדות אצל גוי אחד. והיה שולח שם רבינו שמואל בכל השכמה בתו לראות, ולא היתה מספקת לבוא שם עד שחלבו הגוי כולו או רובו." Parallel sources are cited by Urbach in Ba'alei HaTosafot p. 46, n. 13.

⁵ See Rashbam's commentary on Bereshit 37:2.

⁶ See Rashbam's commentary on Bereshit 25:32.

⁷ See Sefer HaYuchsin v.5 (p.218) and discussion in E. Urbach, Baalei HaTosafot, (Jerusalem, 1986) pp. 114-115.

⁸

⁹ Two versions of this commentary survived in two different printings, Bomberg and Pisarro.

¹⁰ See Tosafot MegillahMegillah 18b s.v. קנקנתוםAbout Ba'alei HaTosafot

¹¹ See TosafotBava Metziah 19a s.v. וליחושBava Batra 27a s.v. ולכתובAbout Ba'alei HaTosafot

¹² See Tosafot Bava KamaBava Kama 68a s.v. מהAbout Ba'alei HaTosafot

¹³ See Rashbam on Bava Batra 50b s.v. "רב מרי"

¹⁴ See TosafotYoma 18b s.v. והאמרYevamot 80b s.v. עדAbout Ba'alei HaTosafot

¹⁵ To compensate, the manuscript contained Parashot Vaetchanan, Eikev, and Reeh twice, with slight changes.

¹⁶ See the discussion and examples below.

¹⁷ See, for instance, his comments to Bereshit 1:1, Bereshit 37:2, Shemot 21:1, and his introduction to Vayikra.

¹⁸ Thus, Rashbam in no way denigrated Midrashic exegesis.  He notes that most halakhot are derived from textual nuances and idiosyncrasies and has the utmost respect for this approach. Despite its value, however, it is possible that Rashbam felt no need to include such interpretations in his own work as these had already been incorporated into his grandfather's commentary.  See Rashbam on Shemot 21:1 and his introduction to Vayikra 1:1 where Rashbam explicitly sends his readers to Rashi's commentary, noting that he himself will not be focusing on the Halakhot and Derashot, but that his grandfather did.

¹⁹ E. Touitou, "שיטתו הפרשנית של רשב"ם על רקע המציאות ההסטורית של זמנו” in עיונים בספרי חז"ל במקרא ובתולדות ישראל,  Ed. E.Z. Melammed (Ramat Gan, 1982): 48-74,  suggests that, in turning to "peshat", Rashbam was, at least in part, reacting to the historical realities of his time, namely the Christian–Jewish polemics of his day. A large part of the controversy centered around the issue of Biblical exegesis and by focusing on the simple sense of Scripture Rashbam was able to deal with Christians on their own terms. Recognizing that there are two realms of interpretation allowed him to explain passages according to the simple reading even when such explanations contradicted those of the Sages.  A. Grossman,  חכמי צרפת הראשונים, (Jerusalem, 1995): 480, brings support for this idea by pointing to several passages in which Rashbam writes, “according to 'the simple sense of the text' and an answer to the heretics,” connecting the two issues himself. 
It is also possible that Rashbam’s new approach was not the product of external influences but rather internal ones. Rashbam’s commentary might have simply been the result of a natural historical development, one paralleled in the world of Talmudic study. Rashi had laid the framework for those who followed him. Only after he explained the Talmudic text could the Tosafists analyze it. And, similarly, only after he pointed out the difficulties in Biblical passages could others take issue with his solutions, question his midrashic sources, and move beyond him.

²⁰ See his comments to Bereshit 37:2, "והראשונים מתוך חסידותם נתעסקו לנטות אחרי הדרשות שהן עיקר, ומתוך כך לא הורגלו בעומק פשוטו של מקרא".  See also Rashbam Bereshit 49:9, 49:16 and Shemot 3:11 where he writes that others misunderstood the simple sense of the verses and that if readers want to grasp their true meaning, they should look to his commentary. Elsewhere, he calls his predecessor’s explanations "worthless" (Bereshit 5:28, Devarim 15:18, and his concluding remarks to Devarim 34) "false" (Shemot. 2:2) or "stupidity" (Bereshit 49:8, Shemot 33:14, 34:29).

²¹ See Rashbam's concluding comments to Devarim, "אם יראו הרואים פירושים קדומים שנוטים לצד פשט אחר בעניינים אחרים, יתנו לב כי אינם דרך ארץ לפי חכמת דברי בני אדם או כפירוש הפסוק אינו כן" and his famous comments regarding Rashi's commentary, "וגם רבנו שלמה אבי אמי מאיר עיני גולה שפירש תורה נביאים וכתובים נתן לב לפרש פשוטו של מקרא. ואף אני שמואל ב"ר מאיר חתנו זצ"ל נתווכחתי עמו ולפניו, והודה לי שאילו היה לו פנאי היה צריך לעשות פרושים אחרים לפי הפשטות המתחדשים בכל יום".

²² See the discussion below.

²³ Some exceptions include his comments to Bemidbar 11:35 (where he explains the textual motives of the Midrash at length), 13:22 (where he writes, "הגדה נראית פשט") and 21:27.

²⁴ Rashbam's rejection of Midrash stems from the fact that it has no basis in the Biblical text, not that he thought that it could not be true. In this he differs from Ibn Ezra, who instead rejects Midrashim due to his rationalist outlook. If Ibn Ezra finds a Midrash implausible, he will reject it as being false.

²⁵ Here, too, Rashbam might be contrasted with Ibn Ezra, who felt obligated to explain legal portions of Torah according to the Sage's interpretations.  Rashbam felt no such need, seeing Peshat and Midrash as two legitimate modes of interpretation, both which could be valid simultaneously. 
A polemical issue might explain the difference in approach. Ibn Ezra, combating the Karaites who rejected the Oral Law, could never explicitly reject Midrashic legal interpretations in his commentary. Rashbam, on the other hand, had no such concerns, and interestingly, some of his explanations even resemble those of the Karaites. [Compare, for instance, his explanation of Shemot 22:6 with that of Benjamin Nahawandi.]

²⁶ For other examples where Rashbam's explanation of a verse is at odds with (or contrasted to) the halakhah, see his comments to Shemot 12:17, 21:6, 10, 20, 28, 33, 34, 22:6, Vayikra 5:13, 11:40, 16:6,10, Bemidbar 30:11, Devarim 25:6, and 26:14.

²⁷ See the discussion above which cites Rashbam's statements regarding "פשוטו של מקרא".

²⁸ See Sefer HaGan Bereshit 48:12, "וזה אחד מן הכתובים שפירש רבינו שמואל הבאים להסביר מקראות שלפנים כדפירש בתחילת בראשית" which implies that Rashbam was known for applying the method of "hakdamot".

²⁹ For other examples, see his comments to Bereshit 18:1, 20:4, 21:14, 24:35, 25:28, 26:15,35, 29:31, 35:22, 37:2,11, 23, 41:50, Shemot 1:1, 2:23, 6:14,18, 16:15, Devarim 1:2, 4:11, 4:41.  See also Reconstructed Rashbam to Bereshit 9:18,14:18.