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,³ Caen,⁴ Paris and Loudun.⁵
• Occupation – Rashbam had a flock of ewes, which provided milk and wool.⁶
• Family – Rashbam was the grandson of Rashi⁷ and the son of R. Meir⁸ and Yocheved.⁹ His brothers were R. Yitzchak, R. Tam, and R. Shelomo.¹⁰ He had a daughter Marona and perhaps a son Yosef.¹¹ It is possible that he married  a daughter of R. Shemaya, Rashi's scribe and disciple.¹²
• Education – Rashbam engaged in Mikra, Talmud, and grammar.
  
• Teachers – R. Meir, his father, and Rashi his grandfather.
• Contemporaries – 
• Students – 
• Time period
  • –

Works

• Biblical commentaries – Rashbam wrote a commentary on most or all of Tanakh. See below regarding his Torah commentary. Commentaries of Rashbam on Tehillim,¹³ Iyyov, Kohelet, and Shir HaShirim have recently been published, but his authorship of these works is disputed.¹⁴ [For discussion, see Rashbam's Commentaries on Nakh.] Citations from Rashbam's commentaries on Neviim and Ketuvim also survived in the Arugat HaBosem of R. Avraham b. Azriel and in various Northern French commentaries.
• Grammar – Rashbam wrote a grammatical work, Sefer HaDayyakot.¹⁵ It contains two parts: 1) a grammatical treatise of eight chapters discussing various families of roots, the construct state (סמיכות), masculine and feminine forms and other issues 2) a grammatical commentary to Tanakh. In the heading to the second section, Rashbam expresses his intention to cover all 24 books of Tanakh but only his comments until Bereshit 7:5 have survived.¹⁶
• Rabbinics – 
  • Talmudic novellae – Rashbam wrote commentaries on the tenth chapter of Pesachim and on Bava Batra 29a¹⁷ through the end¹⁸ in order to complete missing sections of Rashi's commentary.¹⁹  Sections of his commentary to Avodah Zarah have also survived and have been published separately by R. Moshe Yehuda HaKohen Blau²⁰ and by d R. Hillel Gershoni.²¹ In addition Rashbam wrote commentaries on Eiruvin,²² Gittin,²³ Bava Kama,²⁴ other sections of Bava Batra,²⁵ Makkot,²⁶ Chullin,²⁷ and Niddah²⁸ which are not extant, but are cited by other commentaries.
  • Halakhic codes – 
  • Responses to the works of others – Rashbam wrote Tosafot to the Rif in which he brings traditions from France and Germany, sometimes arguing with R. Alfasi and sometimes addressing the Talmud itself.²⁹
  • Responsa – 
• Jewish thought – 
• Commonly misattributed to Rashbam – 

Torah Commentary

Textual Issues

• Manuscripts – Rashbam's commentary on Torah survived in only 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 (chapter 1-17), Parashat Pinechas, and Devarim 33:4 through the end of Torah.³⁰ Fortuitously, Rashbam's commentary on two of these chapters survived in two other manuscripts. The commentary on Bereshit 1 (until the middle of the last verse of the chapter) was discovered by A. Geiger as an appendix to MS Munich 5 and is now incorporated in most printed editions³¹ and the commentary to part of Devarim 34 was published by M. Sokolow from MS Oxford Opp. 34. Recently, the other missing portions of Rashbam's commentary to Bereshit have been reconstructed by R. Dr. Hillel Novetsky.  For discussion of the reconstruction and for the reconstructed text itself, 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. Hןis commentary, nonetheless, is not local in scope. He viewed the entire text as one integrated unit, searching for Biblical parallels and noting "ways of the text".³²
• Peshat and Derash – Rashbam repeatedly asserts³³ that even though the Halakhic and Midrashic level of interpretation is the most essential one,³⁴ his goal is to explain the simple sense of Scripture.³⁵ In this he saw himself as a pioneer,³⁶ often noting that his predecessors did not reach a full understanding of "פשוטו של מקרא",‎³⁷ and that even those who attempted to do so, did not go far enough.³⁸ 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,³⁹ and by his intrascriptural exegesis (use of context, Biblical parallels, and "דרכי המקראת") on the other.⁴⁰ 
• Peshat vs. Midreshei Aggadah – Though Rashbam will rarely incorporate such Midrashim into his commentary as being the primary meaning of a verse (as they are not anchored in the text),⁴¹ he did not view these as false, writing, "כל דברי רבותינו ודרשותיהם כנים ואמתים"‎.⁴² 
• Peshat vs. Midreshei Halakhah – At times, Rashbam will explain a verse according to its simple sense, even when this contradicts a Halakhah.⁴³ 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.⁴⁴

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,⁴⁵ most notably in his conclusion to Devarim 34. There he writes, "ואני פירשתיו יפה לפי הפסוקים ולפי דרך ארץ", noting that his commentary is marked by intrascriptural exegesis and an eye to realia. Each of these will be elaborated on below:
• Intrascriptural exegesis – Rather than looking outside of the text to explain its difficulties, Rashbam's lets the Biblical text explain itself. This is manifest in both his usage of Biblical parallels, proof texts,⁴⁶ and context and in his recognition of "דרכי המקראות" (lit. the way of the text), the literary methods of Tanakh.
• A. Biblical parallels, proof texts and context – Rashbam will often turn to other verses to explain a word or address a conceptual or textual difficulty:
• Definitions – Rashbam generally explains difficult words by looking at their usage in other places in Tanakh rather than looking to cognate languages or Mishnaic Hebrew.⁴⁷ Often his definitions will be followed by a list of proof texts that support his opinion.⁴⁸ When a word is rare or a hapax legomenon, he will turn to the context, stating "פתרונו לפי עניינו",‎⁴⁹ or draw off a parallel in the verse.⁵⁰
• Contextual explanations – Often, Rashbam will address a difficulty in a verse by looking to immediately surrounding ones. Thus, for example, he explains the content of the "חֹק וּמִשְׁפָּט" given in Marah (Shemot 15:25), by pointing to the very next verse, "אִם שָׁמוֹעַ תִּשְׁמַע לְקוֹל ה'... וְשָׁמַרְתָּ כׇּל חֻקָּיו".‎⁵¹
• Clarifications and explanations – Similarly, Rashbam might clarify the intent of a verse by turning to another verse elsewhere in Tanakh,⁵² sometimes, even without any further explanation.⁵³ 
• Background – In places where the Torah refers back to an event that previously took place, Rashbam elucidates the reference by including the relevant verses in his comments.⁵⁴ 
• B. דרכי המקראות – Rashbam explains certain difficulties in the Biblical text by noting that these are not really anomalies, but common Biblical literary phenomena, "the way of the text."⁵⁵ Several categories of examples follow:
  
• 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, where he brings the well known example of "חם הוא אבי כנען".‎⁵⁶ Though Rashbam is not the first to apply the principle,⁵⁷ he develops the idea, uses it more extensively,⁵⁸ and takes it further than his predecessors. Perhaps his most radical application is the suggestion that the entire creation narrative serves merely to introduce the commandment to keep the Shabbat.⁵⁹
• Issues of Chronology:
• אין מוקדם ומאוחר – Rashbam invokes the rule "אין מוקדם ומאוחר" only once in his commentary,⁶⁰ generally preferring to posit that the Torah is written in chronological order.⁶¹
• לא להפסיק הענין – In the few places where he does posit a lack of order, he provides a literary reason, noting that Tanakh might delay or prepone the recording of certain details⁶² so as not to interrupt a storyline (לא להפסיק הענין).⁶³
• כלל ופרט – Rashbam explains that it is confluent with the Torah’s style to first generalize and afterwards explain.⁶⁴
• Geographical markers (סימן בתוך סימן) – Rashbam notes that Tanakh often "gives signs upon signs" to mark the exact location of a place.⁶⁵
•  Poetic Doubling (פסוקי דשמואל)⁶⁶ – Rashbam explains many examples of doubled phrases (such as: "בן פורת יוסף בן פורת עלי עין") as being simply a common stylistic feature of poetic passages in Tanakh.⁶⁷
• Parallelism and doubling (כפל לשון) – Similarly, Rashbam notes that it is the way of Tanakh to repeat an idea in synonymous parallels.⁶⁸ In such cases, one need not assume that each half of the verse is coming to teach something new.⁶⁹
• Names and references – Rashbam observes that it is common in Tanakh for a sister to be called after the name of her older brother⁷⁰ or a messenger to be referred to by the name of the one who sent him.⁷¹ He further notes that when listing people, males will generally be named before females⁷² and those who are more important before those of lesser stature.⁷³
• Grammatical phenomena – Rashbam states that it is "דרך המקראות" to sometimes use a singular formulation when referring to the plural (Bereshit 1:14), to double the word "נא" (Bereshit 12:11)⁷⁴ or "גם" (Bereshit 24:25),⁷⁵ leave out the word "אשר" (Bereshit 18:5), or to use androgynous forms.⁷⁶
• Linguistic Phenomena – Rashbam notes that it is the way of the text to use the word "והנה" when expressing wonder (Bereshit 25:24, 29:25), the term "ten" to refer to many (Bereshit 31:7), or the specific terms "דגן ותירוש ויצהר" to refer to any agricultural produce (Shemot 23:11)
• II. Way of the World (דרך ארץ) – A second major method employed by Rashbam is to explain verses in light of "דרך ארץ", the customs, social norms and manners of people (either in the Biblical period or throughout history).
• Language – Rashbam notes that the language of the text, at times, simply reflects human speech patterns. Thus, he explains that Esav repeats the word “red” in his request to his brother for “it is the way of a man in a hurry to double his words” (Bereshit 25:30).⁷⁷
• Customs in the time of Tanakh – See Bereshit 24:2 (regarding the custom for a servant to swear by grasping his master's legs), Bereshit 25:31 (regarding the custom of eating as a means to seal an agreement), Bereshit 41:10 (regarding kingly titles such as Paroh and Avimelekh),⁷⁸ Bereshit 41:45 (regarding the custom to grant a newly appointed servant a new name),⁷⁹ or Bereshit 47:21 (regarding population displacement).⁸⁰
• Medieval customs – See Rashbam Bereshit 25:25 and Shemot 28:32 where Rashbam describes Biblical garments in light of the clerical costumes of his day.
• General human behavior – Other actions are explained by recognizing that these reflect general modes of behavior (throughout history). Thus, Lot is warned not to look back since one who does so tends to tarry (Bereshit 19:17). The "running" of Rivka's unborn children is simply normal fetal movement (Bereshit 25:22).⁸¹ Moshe lifted his hands and staff when the people battled Amalek since banners boost a soldier's morale (Shemot 17:16). ⁸²
• Way of nature – See Bereshit 27:1 where Rashbam explains that Yitzchak's grew blind due to old age,⁸³ and Shemot 14:21, regarding the affects of wind on drying water.

Themes

• Polemics – In a handful of places in His Torah commentary, Rashbam explicitly targets "המינים", noting that his explanation is a response to Christian claims.⁸⁴ See, for instance his comments to Shemot 3:22,⁸⁵ where he explains that the Israelites did not borrow vessels from the Egyptians but rather received them as presents. This might be a response to Christian claims of unethical behavior on the part of Israel.⁸⁶ It is possible that other explanations, such as Rashbam's defense of the Avot, are similarly motivated.⁸⁷

• Defense of Avot – In several places in Torah Rashbam appears to defend the Avot, removing blame for potential misdeeds. See his defense of Avraham in sending away Hagar with little water (Bereshit 21:14), Yaakov in his interactions with Esav (Bereshit 25:31 and 27:13), or the brothers for their role in the sale of Yosef (Bereshit 37:28).⁸⁸ It should be noted, however, that Rashbam does not always paint our ancestors as blameless,⁸⁹ nor does he always paint their counterparts as evil.⁹⁰
• Authorship of Torah – In several places in Torah,⁹¹ Rashbam uses language such as "Moshe wrote" when discussing the composition of Torah. About half of these are examples of literary anticipation, where Rashbam states that Moshe wrote something so that a later portion of Torah (often, a legal portion) will be understood. This has led E. Touitou⁹² to claim that Rashbam assumed that Moshe composed the narrative sections of Torah and Sefer Devarim (with Divine inspiration), while only the legal core is direct from Hashem. The theory has been questioned on several grounds.⁹³

Sources

Significant Influences

• Relationship to Rashi – Probably the most major influence on Rashbam was Rashi. Rashbam's entire Torah commentary is set up as a foil and complement to that of his grandfather, with most of the lemma upon which he comments being the same as those in Rashi's commentary. At times, Rashbam explicitly directs his readers to Rashi's commentary,⁹⁴ perhaps a sign that he viewed his own as only an addition to that of his illustrious relative.
• More often than not, Rashbam will disagree with Rashi. Generally, though, he is very respectful towards him. One exception is his comments to Devarim 34, where he is very strident in his criticism, calling Rashi's interpretation "הבל".‎⁹⁵ 
• Despite the vast differences between the commentaries, there are multiple cases where the interpretations of the two overlap. At times Rashbam will elaborate upon Rashi (adding a proof text or explanation),⁹⁶ at times he will restate Rashi's main point more succinctly,⁹⁷ and elsewhere he might choose among two of Rashi's explanations.⁹⁸

• Earlier Sources – 
• Teachers – 
• Rashbam's father, R. Meir – Rashbam cites his father twice in his commentary, in Bereshit 25:32 and Bemidbar 31:49.
• –
• –

Occasional Usage

• –

Possible Relationship

•  Ibn Ezra – Rashbam and Ibn Ezra were contemporaries, both were pioneers of "peshat" analysis, and some of their interpretations resemble one another, yet neither ever cites the other by name, leading scholars to debate the degree of influence they had upon one another (and in which direction).
• Was Ibn Ezra aware of Rashbam's commentary? Several scholars assume that Ibn Ezra did not have access to Rashbam's commentary when he wrote his First Commentary to Torah in Italy,⁹⁹ but that by the time he wrote his Second Commentary in Rouen, he either had it in its entirety or was at least aware of individual comments.¹⁰⁰ Similarly, it has been suggested that Ibn Ezra's Iggeret HaShabbat was written to combat Rashbam's explanation of Bereshit 1:4-8 where he implies that the day precedes the night. In addition, R. Merdler¹⁰¹ has demonstrated that Ibn Ezra in his Second Commentary on Bereshit is responding to Rashbam's Sefer HaDayyakot. See a comparison table here.
• Was Rashbam aware of Ibn Ezra's commentary? Noting the similarity between many of the exegetes' interpretations, some have suggested that Rashbam might have had access to individual interpretations of Ibn Ezra, or even to the entire First Commentary while writing his own work.147¹⁰² Alternatively, though, it is possible that some of the overlap might simply be due to the similar style of exegesis or to shared sources.

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 Halakhah in front of him (Mordekhai Sanhedrin 702), and that Rashi learned from his interpretations (Sefer HaGan Bereshit 49:22). Since Rashi died in 1105, the assumption is that Rashbam must have been born at least 20 years earlier.

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 E. Urbach, Ba'alei HaTosafot (Jerusalem, 1986): 46, notes that Rashbam's own words testify that in1130 he was in Ramerupt ("בשנת ארבעת אלפים ושמונה מאות ותשעים לבריאת העולם... ואני שמואל בר' מאיר ברמרו"), suggesting that Rashbam left Troyes to go there after Rashi died.

⁴ See R. Tam in Sefer HaYashar Teshuvot 41 who mentions that Rashbam is not with him in Ramerupt but in Caen.

⁵ Rashbam himself mentions that he was asked a question in Loudun (Rashbam Bemidbar 30:2) and in Paris (Rashbam Bemidbar 11:35, Or Zarua 1:476).

⁶ 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 E. Urbach in Ba'alei HaTosafot (Jerusalem, 1986): 46, n. 13.

⁷ See Rashbam's commentary on Bereshit 37:2.

⁸ See Rashbam's commentary on Bereshit 25:32.

⁹ MS Parma 3204 (p. 259, preceding Rashbam's commentary on Iyyov 40:23 until the end) records that Yocheved was Rashbam's mother.

¹⁰ MS Parma 3204 (p. 259) lists the names of Rashbam's three brothers.

¹¹ See Sefer HaYuchsin v.5 (p.218) and discussion in E. Urbach (ibid): 114-115.

¹² See Sefer HaYashar 68, where Rabbenu Tam speaks of R.Shemaya as "חמיו של רבינו אחי".  Though he does not specify to which brother he is referring, E. Urbach, בעלי התוספות כרך א' (ירושלים, תשמ"ו): 35-36, suggests that he is speaking of Rashbam who is referred to elsewhere also by Rabbenu Tam as "רבינו אחי".

¹³ See A. Mondschein, "האם 'פירושו האבוד' של רשב"ם לספר תהלים בידינו?", Proceedings of the 15th World Congress of Jewish Studies 2010: 1-28, and "על גילוי הפירוש ה'אבוד' של רשב"ם לספר תהלים ופרסום מוקדם של פירושו למזמורים קכ–קלו", Tarbiz 79:1 (2010): 91-142.  For further discussion, see Rashbam's Commentaries on Nakh.

¹⁴ For discussion of the commentary to Shir HaShirim, see  י. האס, "פירוש שיר השירים המיוחס לר' שמואל בן מאיר (רשב"ם): עיון מחודש בשאלת המחבר", JSIJ 7 (2008): 1-20 and  שרה יפת, "פירוש ר' שמואל בן מאיר לשיר השירים",  תרביץ ע"ה, (תשס"ו). Regarding Kohelet, see, שרה יפת, "פירוש הרשב"ם על מגילת קהלת", תרביץ מ"ד (תשל"ה): 72-94 and אברהם גרוסמן, "הפירוש למגילת קהלת המיוחס לרשב״ם", תרביץ מ"ה .(תשל"ו): 336-340 (and their continued debate in Tarbitz 47 and 48).  Regarding Iyyov, see M. Lockshin, "Rashbam" on Job: A Reconsideration", JSQ 8:1 (2001): 80-104.

¹⁵ There is only one manuscript of the work, found in the State Library of Berlin, Ms. Or. Qu. 647. It was first published by Y. Stein in the beginning of the 20th century, and then again in a more critical edition by R. Merdler in 2000. It is not clear when the work was written. While Stein and Merdler assume Rashbam wrote it towards the end of his life, after completing his Torah commentary, Y. Ofer suggests that Rashbam wrote the work while he was still young, before his Torah commentary. See the discussion in י. עופר, "מתי נכתב "דייקות", ספר הדקדוק של רשב"ם?", שנתון לחקר המקרא .והמזרח הקדום י"ז (תשס"ז):233-251

¹⁶ The copyist of the manuscript that has survived writes that he did not find the continuation but expresses his hopes that he will. As such, it is unclear whether Rashbam ever finished the work.

¹⁷ Two versions of this commentary have survived in two different printings, Bomberg and Pisarro. E. Urbach (ibid, p. 50) contends that the Pisarro edition actually comprises pieces from other commentaries as well. The first section, until 54b, appears to be an abridged version of Rashbam, with many insertions copied from R. Chananel, the next section, until 157, ifs fairly similar to Rashbam, while the end is likely compiled from the commentary of R. Gershom Meor HaGolah (פירוש מגינצא).

¹⁸ As Rashbam on Bava Batra 50b (ד"ה רב מרי אמר) references an explanation of his to chapter two of the tractate, it is possible that he wrote a commentary on the entire tractate, though the rest has not survived.

¹⁹ E. Urbach (ibid, p/49) notes that though we have comments of Rashi to chapter ten of Pesachim, these might have been a draft of Rashi's commentary which was not fully worked through.  Rashbam's commentary on the chapter is the more well known one, and when Tosafot reference "פירוש הקומטרוס"on the unit, they are referring to Rashbam's work rather than Rashi's.

²⁰ See his שיטת הקמונים.

²¹ This edition is available in alhatorah's Shas Gadol.  For discussion of the identification of the commentary and the edition as a whole, see here..

²² See, for instance, Tosafot MegillahMegillah 18b s.v. קנקנתוםAbout Ba'alei HaTosafot who reference it.

²³ See TosafotBava Metziah 19a s.v. וליחושBava Batra 27a s.v. ולכתובAbout Ba'alei HaTosafot which reference it.

²⁴ See Tosafot Bava KamaBava Kama 68a s.v. מהAbout Ba'alei HaTosafot who cite it.

²⁵ See above note that Rashbam on Bava Batra 50b s.v. "רב מרי" refers to one of his explanations to an earlier chapter of the tractate.

²⁶ E. Urbach (ibid, p. 54) notes that Rashi on the Rif to the third chapter of the tractate is actually Rashbam.

²⁷ See, for example, Or Zarua 2:256.

²⁸ See Tosafot YomaYoma 18b s.v. והאמרYevamot 80b s.v. עדAbout Ba'alei HaTosafot who reference a comment of his to the tractate.

²⁹ Several of Rashbam's additions appear in manuscripts of the Rif and have been incorporated into printed editions, prefaced by the words "ואני שמואל מוסיף" (see, for example, Rif Shabbat 64a).  Several of the Tosafot have been published by S. Friedman, "מתוספות רשב"ם לריף סדר נשים ומסכת חולין", קובץ על יד ס"ח (תשל"ו): 168 ואילך.   Urbach (ibid, p56-57) notes that Rashbam was among the first of the French Talmudists to study the Rif seriously.

³⁰ To compensate, the manuscript contained Parashot Vaetchanan, Eikev, and Reeh twice, with slight changes.

³¹ This text was originally published by A. Geiger, "אגרת ז", Kerem Chemed 8 (1854): 41-51. It was included with corrections by D. Rosin in his critical edition of Rashbam's commentary.

³² See the discussion and examples below.

³³ See, for instance, his comments to Bereshit 1:1, Bereshit 37:2, and his introduction to Shemot 21 and Vayikra.

³⁴ 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. [See also his comments to Vayikra 13:2, where he acknowledges that the parshiot regarding tzara'at cannot be explained via "פשוטו של מקרא" or "דרך ארץ" and one must rely on the Midrashim of the sages.] Despite recognizing its value, 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 in his introductions to Shemot 21 and Sefer Vayikra 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.

³⁵ This focus is evident in the close to 150 times in his Torah commentary that Rashbam uses language such as: ‎"לפי הפשט", "לפי פשוטו‎", "זה עיקר פשוטו", and the like. In fact, the latter phrase, "זהו עקר פשוטו", is somewhat unique to Rashbam, never appearing in Rashi and appearing only once in the commentary of R"Y Kara (Tehillim 5:8) and once in the commentary attributed to him on Sefer Shemuel I 3:14.

³⁶ 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, discusses the possible motivations that might have led to the new focus on "peshat". He suggests that Rashbam was, at least in part, reacting to 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 passages in which Rashbam writes, “according to the simple sense of the text and an answer to the heretics,” connecting the two issues himself (see Rashbam Shemot 3:22 and Vayikra 11:3). He further notes that by focusing on the literal meaning of the text, Rashbam hindered the efforts of opponents to offer Christological or allegorical explanations.
E. Touitou, 11-33 :הפשטות המתחדשים בכל יום, (ירושלים, תשס"ג), also points to a second possible factor which might have influenced Rashbam's exegesis, the 12th century renaissance. It promoted human reason alongside the authority of tradition and ushered in new modes of Biblical interpretation which focused more on the literal meaning of the text. For example, Hugh of St. Victor, a leading French theologian of the time, highlights the need to understand the text itself before reaching its spiritual significance. Others write essays on topography, the science behind creation, and the importance of history in exegesis. These tendencies likely influenced Rashbam as well (it is known that he had contact with scholars working in the monastery).
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.

³⁷ 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, Bereshit 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" (Devarim 15:18, and his concluding remarks to Devarim 34) "false" (Shemot 2:2) or "stupidity" (Bereshit 49:8, Shemot 33:14, Shemot 34:29, Devarim 15:18).

³⁸ 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 well known 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".

³⁹ In this he stands in contrast to Rashi who will often identify an anonymous character in Tanakh with a well know figure. Contrast the two on Bereshit 18:7, Bereshit 22:3, Bereshit 42:23, Shemot 2:13, Shemot 16:20, or Bemidbar 11:27.

⁴⁰ See the discussion below which will elaborate on each of these points.

⁴¹ Some exceptions include his comments to Bemidbar 11:35, where he explains the textual motives of the Midrash at length or Bemidbar 13:22, where he writes, "הגדה נראית פשט". In other cases he will bring a Midrashic explanation, but only to contrast it with his own preferred peshat approach. [See, for example, Bereshit 25:17, Bereshit 46:8, Shemot 6:14, Shemot 16:31, and many others.]

⁴² In other words, 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.

⁴³ 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 further 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.]  For further discussion, see M. Lockshin, "Tradition or Context: Two Exegetes Struggle with Peshat", in From Anceint Israel to Modern Judaism: Intellect in Quest of Undertanding Vol II, (Georgia, 1989): 173-186 who compares the two exegetes and their attitude towards halakhic interpretations of the Sages.

⁴⁴ For other examples where Rashbam's explanation of a verse is at odds with (or contrasted to) the halakhah, see his comments to Bereshit 1:4 (and the discussion in Rashbam's Torah Commentary), Shemot 12:17, 21:6, 21:10, 20, 28, 33, 34, 22:6, Vayikra 5:13, 11:40, 16:6-10, Bemidbar 30:11, and Devarim 25:6.

⁴⁵ See the discussion above which cites Rashbam's statements regarding his attitude towards peshat and derash.

⁴⁶ Though it is not unique to bring proof texts in one's commentary, see: י. יעקבס "'ללמוד תיבה מחברתה:' רשב"ם כמפרש המקרא מתוך עצמן", שנתון לחקר המקרא והמזרח הקדום י"ז (2007): 215-231, who notes that Rashbam brings considerably more proof texts than his peers. Comparing Rashbam to Rashi and R"Y Bekhor Shor on Bereshit 41, he notes that in 62 comments on the chapter, Rashi quotes 15 verses, in the 42 comments of R"Y Bekhor Shor, he brings 22 proof texts, while in Rashbam's 44 comments, he cites 46 verses!

⁴⁷ Contrast, for instance, RashiBereshit 45:24Shemot 12:7About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki and Rashbam on Bereshit 45:24 and Shemot 12:7, where Rashi is influenced by the Aramaic while Rashbam looks at the root's usage elsewhere in Tanakh. See how he argues against the proofs from Aramaic, writing, "והמפרש לשון שקיפת וחבטת הדלת עליו, צריך למצוא לו חבר בלשון תורה ונביאים בלשון העברי".

⁴⁸ See, for a few of many examples, Rashbam on Bereshit 20:13, Bemidbar 4:20, Devarim 5:18, 7:23, 13:7, and 15:2.

⁴⁹ See, for instance, Bereshit 41:23, 50:2, Shemot 16:14, 27:10, Vayikra 19:26, Bemidbar 7:3, 18:19, and Devarim 32:24. In some of these cases, Rashbam does not even explain the word, simply telling the reader to understand its meaning from context.

⁵⁰ See, for instance, his comments to Bereshit 49:5, 49:22-24 and Shemot 15:2.

⁵¹ For other examples, see Bereshit 21:14, 26:23, 33:18, Vayikra 1:1, 9:23-24, Bemidbar 11:7, 23:9 and 30:2.

⁵² For many examples, see Bereshit 19:17, 28:18, 43:32, Shemot 16:4, Shemot 23:17, 25:31, 28:35, 29:43, Bemidbar 14:9, 24:14, Devarim 5:27, 11:2, or 32:8.

⁵³ For instance, in Rashbam's comments to Devarim 4:26, in order to explain how God will “testify against you, the heavens and the earth” if the people sin, he records the verse “and He will close the heavens and the land will not give forth its wheat.”(Devarim 11:17). See also Rashbam on Devarim 15:11, which he explains simply be referencing Kohelet 7:20.

⁵⁴ Thus, in his comments to Devarim 4:11 when Moshe tells the people that “they came close and stood under the mountain” (during the revelation at Sinai), Rashbam clarifies, “as it says, ‘And Moshe took the people forth from the camp towards God and they stood at the bottom of the Mountain.’

⁵⁵ Here, too, to prove his point he will often bring several Biblical parallels which similarly attest to whatever phenomenon he is speaking about.

⁵⁶ He explains that this seemingly irrelevant statement is brought in the beginning of the story of Noach's drunkenness so that the reader will know who Canaan is when he is later cursed by Noach.

⁵⁷ See Rashi on Bereshit 9:8 and R"Y Kara on Shemuel I 1:3.  Rashi does not apply the principle methodically and it is even possible that he learned of the principle from R"Y Kara or Rashbam himself.  Alternatively, Rashbam elaborated upon a principle he learned from his predecessors.

⁵⁸ 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".

⁵⁹ For other examples, see his comments to Bereshit 18:1, 20:4,24:1, 24:35, 25:28, 26:15, 26:34-35, 29:31, 35:22, 37:2,37:11, 37:23, 41:50, Shemot 1:1, 2:23, 6:14, 6:18, 16:15, Devarim 1:2, 4:11, 4:41. See also Reconstructed Rashbam to Bereshit 9:18,14:18. For an interactive learning unit which analyzes the method of literary anticipation, contrasting R"Y Kara and Rashbam's usage thereof, see Hakdamot.

⁶⁰ See his comments to Vayikra 10:3.

⁶¹ In this, Rashbam stands in contrast to Rashi who invokes the principle numerous times, sometimes providing a homiletical reason for the lack of order, but often not providing any reason at all. The difference might relate to their differing outlooks on the goal of Torah. For Rashi, for whom Torah's messages and halakhot are primary, historical order is not crucial. For, Rashbam, on the other hand, the historical aspect of Torah is very important; lessons are learned specifically from the way events unrolled. [See, for instance, Rashbam Reconstructed Bereshit 5:12 regarding the importance he placed on Biblical genealogies.] In addition, while Rashi's commentary is very local and atomistic in its outlook, rendering chronology somewhat insignificant, Rashbam's is broader in scope, making the order of events much more relevant.

⁶² Sometimes, too, an entire parashah might be recorded out of place.

⁶³ See, for example, his comments to Bereshit 24:22, where he explains that although the servant really gave Rivka the jewelry only after asking who she is, the fact is recorded earlier so as not to interrupt the servant's speech. For other examples, see Rashbam Bereshit 31:33, 35:22 and Shemot 18:13.

⁶⁴ See, for instance, his comments to Bereshit 18:1, Shemot 2:15, 19:8 (and examples there), 21:3, 30:34, Rashbam Vayikra 9:23-24 and 10:1-3 (see how this impacts his understanding of the deaths of Nadav and Avihu) 12:2, Bemidbar 16:14. See also Devarim 20:5 where he notes that the verse first gives the details and then generalizes.

⁶⁵ Thus, one should not be surprised by the long list of place names in Devarim 1:1. See his comments there, where he points to other examples in Bereshit 12:8, Bereshit 14:2, Devarim 4:44-45 and Shofetim 21:19. He also notes that, in particular, the text will make sure to mention the location in which commandments were given.

⁶⁶ Apparently, this term was dubbed by Rashi, presumably because Rashbam introduced him to the phenomenon. See Sefer HaGan who brings Rashbam's explanation to the doubling in Bereshit 49:22,and then adds: "כל זה מיסוד רבנו שמואל, וכשהיה רבי שלמה זקנו מגיע לאותן פסוקים היה קורא אותם פסוקי שמואל על שמו".

⁶⁷ See Rashbam Bereshit 49:22 where he points to other examples in Tehillim 92:10, 93:3, 94:3 and Kohelet 1:2. See also Rashbam Shemot 15:6,15:11,15:16 for examples in the Song of the Sea. Rashbam even notes an example in a prose passage, in his comments to Shemot 4:9.

⁶⁸ See, for instance, his comments to Bereshit 49:5, 8, 11, 22-23, Bemidbar 23:7, and Devarim 32:5, Devarim 32:23. [In the last example he notes that the purpose might be for emphasis].

⁶⁹ This stands in contrast to the Midrashic tendency to view Tanakh as omnisignificant, where every seeming repetition is explored and understood to contribute something new to the text.

⁷⁰ Thus, for instance, he explains why Miriam is referred to as "the sister of Aharon" (and not also Moshe) in Shemot 15:20. See also Rashbam Bereshit 28:9, 36:12, or 36:22 for other examples.

⁷¹ Thus, for instance, Rashbam explains that in the opening to Bereshit 18, " וַיֵּרָא אֵלָיו ה' בְּאֵלֹנֵי מַמְרֵא", the word "Hashem" refers to the angels who are mentioned in the next verse. They are simply called after the One who sent them. For the ramifications of this reading, see Avraham's Guests – Angels or Men?. See also Rashbam Shemot 3:4, 4:24, 13:21, 19:11.

⁷² See Rashbam Bereshit 33:7.

⁷³ See Rashbam Bereshit 35:29.

⁷⁴ See reconstructed Rashbam on this verse.

⁷⁵ He also notes that often the word "גם" modifies the wrong part of a clause and must be understood to modify a different part (Bereshit 29:30, Shemot 12:32 and Bemidbar 22:33).

⁷⁶ Rashbam notes that many nouns (such as: מחנה, שמש or רוח) might be treated as both masculine and feminine (see his comments to Bereshit 32:9), while certain verbs (ויחמנה, וישרנה, ותקרבו) take a mixed feminine-masculine form (see Bereshit 30:38 and examples there).

⁷⁷ Similarly, one need not learn anything from the fact that the Torah says that the angels in Jacob’s dream first went up and then down, for “it is דרך ארץ to mention rising before descending” (Bereshit 28:12). See also Bereshit 18:9, that it is a common custom to enter into a conversation by asking a question.

⁷⁸ See Bemidbar 24:7 similarly.

⁷⁹ Cf. Rashbam's comments to Bereshit 1:5.

⁸⁰ For other examples where Rashbam explains a verse in light of Biblical era customs, see: Bereshit 38:24, Shemot 23:19, Devarim 16:21, or Devarim 25:9. In most of the cases brought, Rashbam uses Biblical parallels to show that the action simply reflects the custom of Biblical times.

⁸¹ Rashbam is countering (and perhaps trying to minimize the miraculous in) Rashi's understanding that Esav would try to exit when Rivka passed a house of idolatry and Yaakov would do so when passing a house of learning.

⁸² For many other examples see Rashbam's comments to: Bereshit 18:1, 25:23, 31:38, 33:18, 34:25 41:2,4,34, 44:10,15, 49:19, Shemot 7:15, 8:18, 22:6, 17, 32:19 and Devarim 21:23.

⁸³ In this he is likely countering Rashi and the Midrashic interpretation that Yitzchak's eyes dimmed due to the smoke of Esav's wives' idolatry.

⁸⁴ Other explanations might also be polemically motivated, even if not explicit. See, for instance, Rashbam on Bereshit 1:26 and compare with R. Yosef Bekhor Shor.

⁸⁵ Cf. Rashbam Shemot 11:2 and 12:36.

⁸⁶ Rashbam's comments to Devarim 22:6, where he explains that certain laws such as sending away the mother bird are an attempt to distance cruelty, might have a similar motive. In his explanation to the laws of Kashrut in Vayikra 11:3 Rashbam also writes, "לפי פשוטו של מקרא ותשובת המינים". M. Lockshin (see his edition of Rashbam's commentary (Jerusalem, 2004) and his notes on Vayikra 13:3) explains that Christian claims that dietary restrictions were unnecessary are what led Rashbam to defend them and point to their utility and health benefits. This might have also motivated him to offer an explanation that displays the laws' universal benefit, rather than one limited exclusively to Jews. [For more, see Purpose of the Laws of Kashrut.]
In his comments to both Shemot 20:12 and Vayikra 19:19, Rashbam not only mentions "the heretics" but also claims that they agreed to his explanations. [Unfortunately both of these explanations of Rashbam are somewhat difficult to understand. Regarding Vayikra 19:19, see: א. טויוטו, "הפשטות המתחדשים בכל יום", (ירושלים, תשס"ג): 284.]
A final example is Rashbam's commentary to Bereshit 49:10, where he notes that his explanation of "Shiloh" as a place name is a response to Christian claims (presumably, their Christological readings of the verse).

⁸⁷ See E. Touitou (ibid, p.45) who suggests that Rashbam's explanation that Yaakov actually paid money for the birthright is a response to Christian claims of dishonesty among Jews (Bereshit 25:31-34). Though Rashbam is not explicit, his reading of the verse is later elaborated upon by R. Yosef HaMekannei who prefaces his remarks by noting how a Dominican Friar denounced Yaakov as a thief. [For further discussion, Sale of the Birthright.]
In Touitou's article "בין פשוטו של מקרא לרוחו של תורה" יחסה של נחמה ליבוביץ לפירוש רשב"ם לתורה", פרקי נחמה (ירושלים, תשס"א):230-231, he suggests that Rashbam's claim that the brothers did not sell Yosef (Bereshit 37:28) is similarly polemically motivated. He advances the theory that Rashbam desired to combat the Christian view of the story as prefiguring Judas (Yehuda) Iscariot's betrayal of Jesus for thirty pieces of silver (cf. the Testament of Gad 2:3-4 which has the brothers selling Yosef for thirty shekel, of which ten were hidden). [For further discussion see: Who Sold Yosef.]
A. Grossman, "The School of Literal Exegesis in Northern France", Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History Of Its Interpretation 1: 2: The Middle Ages (Göttingen, Germany 2000): 361-362, also points to Rashbam's defense of Avraham in sending Hagar away with little water (Rashbam Bereshit 21:14).

⁸⁸ See the note above that some scholars suggest that these readings are polemically motivated to combat Christian claims of Jewish dishonesty and immoral behavior.

⁸⁹ Thus, for instance, he makes no attempt to reread Reuven's actions with Bilhah so as to mitigate blame. In some cases he even introduces wrongdoing that is not evident in the text. For example, he presents the Akeidah as punishment to Avraham for having made a covenant with the Philistines  and Yaakov as sinning in attempting to run away from Esav.

⁹⁰ Thus, in contrast to Rashi, he does not explain Sarah's banishment of Yishmael to be due to his wicked behavior but rather due to her desire to ensure that Yitzchak alone inherit. [See Banishment of Hagar and Yishmael.] See also his comments to Bereshit 25:22, 27-28, 31-34 and 32:1-8 and 21-29, where he depicts Esav somewhat neutrally. Here, too, he stands in contrast to Rashi (and appears to be reacting to his commentary) who paints Esav black.

⁹¹ See his comments to Bereshit 1:1 1:5, 1:27, 19:37, 37:2, Shemot 16:15, Bemidbar 24:14, Devarim 2:5.

⁹² E.Touitou, Exegesis in Perpetual Motion: Studies in the Pentateuchal Commentary of Rabbi Samuel ben Meir (Ramat Gan, 2003), 120–21.

⁹³ See מ.סבתו, "פירוש רשב"ם לתורה", מחניים, 3 (תשנ"ג):110-125  and M. Lockshin, "Moses Wrote the Torah: Rashbam's Perspective", Hebrew Union College Annual 84-85 (2014): 109–125.

⁹⁴ See his introductions to Shemot 21, Shemot 25, and Sefer Vayikra, and his comments to Shemot 28:6 and Bemidbar 34:2.

⁹⁵ In some other cases where Rashbam refers to another interpretation as "foolish", "mistaken" and the like it is not clear to whom he is referring. In some cases, these comments, too, might be aimed at Rashi. [See, for example Bereshit 33:18, Bereshit 36:24, Bereshit 49:16, Shemot 2:6, Bemidbar 22:33 where Rashbam appears to be reacting to an interpretation brought by Rashi.]

⁹⁶ For example, compare the two on Bereshit 37:18, Bereshit 38:2, Bereshit 42:8, 43:12, Shemot 5:13, Shemot 8:19, Shemot 15:13, and Devarim 4:16.

⁹⁷ Compare the two on Shemot 2:10, 6:2, 7:27, 8:5, 9:30, Vayikra 10:16, 22:3, Bemidbar 16:22, Devarim 11:7 and 32:1.

⁹⁸ See, for example, Bereshit 19:20, 28:10, 32:16 or 35:22. [In each of these cases Rashi brings a Midrashic explanation and a more peshat-oriented one. Rashbam consistently brings just the latter.]

⁹⁹ See: א. סימון, "אחרית דבר: הפן הפולמוסי של יסוד מורא", ר' אברהם אבן עזרא יסוד מורה וסוד התורה, מהדורת מ' כהן וא' סימון (רמת גן, תשס"ד): 216-217.

¹⁰⁰ See: E. Margaliot "היחס שבין פירוש הרשב"ם לפירוש הראב"ע על התורה", ספר אסף, (ירושלים, תשי"ג): 357-369 who points to seven explanations in Ibn Ezra's second commentary to Shemot which he believes were influenced by Rashbam's comments. [He points to Ibn Ezra on Shemot 4:10,14, 7:1, 11:11, 20:21, and 25:6,9.] See also discussions by A. Mondschein, "לשאלת היחס בין פירושיהם של ראב"ע ורשב"ם לתורה: בחינה מחודשת, תעודה ט"ז-י"ז (תשס"א): 22-29," who concludes that Ibn Ezra first gained access to Rashbam's commentary when in England, though he likely heard about individual comments earlier, and I. Kislev, "הזיקה בין פירושיהם של ראב"ע ורשב"ם: סוגיית מרכיבי הקטורת", תרביץ ע"ח (תשס"ט): 61-80, who attempts to show that when Ibn Ezra wrote his second commentary he was very familiar with Rashbam's commentary.

¹⁰¹ See her article, "תגובתו של ר' אברהם אבן עזרא לפירושו הדקדוקי של ר' שמואל בן מאיר", ‎ש"י לשרה יפת,‎ (Jerusalem, 2007): 195-216.

¹⁰² For discussion see J. Jacobs, "Does Rashbam's Commentary on the Torah Acknowledge the Commentaries of R. Abraham ibn Ezra", Journal of Jewsih Studies LXI:2 (2010): 291-304 and I. Kislev "הפשטות המתחדשים בכל יום: פירושו הקצר של רבי אברהם אבן עזרא לתורה כמקור לרשב"ם בפירושו לתורה".