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

From AlHaTorah.org
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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
Dates1085-1174
LocationFrance
WorksTanakh and Talmud commentaries
Exegetical Characteristics
Influenced byRashi, his father R. Meir
Impacted onR. 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. 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 – Rashbam wrote a grammatical work, Sefer HaDayyakot.8   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.9
  • Rabbinics – 
    • Talmudic novellae – Rashbam wrote commentaries on the tenth chapter of Pesachim and on Bava Batra 29a through the end10 in order to complete missing sections of Rashi's commentary. In addition Rashbam wrote commentaries on Eiruvin,11 Gittin,12 Bava Kama,13 other sections of Bava Batra,14 and Niddah15 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.16 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. 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".17
  • Peshat and Derash – Rashbam repeatedly asserts18 that even though the Halakhic and Midrashic level of interpretation is the most essential one,19 his goal is to explain the simple sense of Scripture.20 In this he saw himself as a pioneer,21 often noting that his predecessors did not reach a full understanding of "פשוטו של מקרא",‎22 and that even those who attempted to do so, did not go far enough.23 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 (use of context, Biblical parallels, and "דרכי המקראת") on the other.24 
    • 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),25 he did not view these as false, writing, "כל דברי רבותינו ודרשותיהם כנים ואמתים"‎.26 
    • Peshat vs. Midreshei Halakhah – At times, Rashbam will explain a verse according to its simple sense, even when this contradicts a halakhah.27  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.28

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,29 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:
  • I. 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, prooftexts,30 and context and in his recognition of "דרכי המקראות" (lit. the way of the text), the literary methods of Tanakh.
    • A. Biblical parallels, prooftexts 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.31 Often his definitions will be followed by a list of prooftexts that support his opinion.32  When a word is rare or a hapax legomenon, he will turn to the context, stating "פתרונו לפי עניינו",‎33 or draw off a parallel in the verse.34
      • 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".‎35
      • Clarifications and explanations – Similarly, Rashbam might clarify the intent of a verse by turning to another verse elsewhere in Tanakh,36 sometimes, even without any further explanation.37 
      • 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.38 
    • 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."39  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".‎40 Though Rashbam is not the first to apply the principle, he develops the idea, uses it more extensively,41 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.42
      • Issues of Chronology: לא להפסיק הענין – Rashbam invokes the rule "אין מוקדם ומאוחר" only once in his commentary,43 generally preferring to posit that the Torah is written in chronological order.44  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 details45 so as not to interrupt a storyline (לא להפסיק הענין).46
      • כלל ופרט – Rashbam explains that it is confluent with the Torah’s style to first generalize and afterwards explain.47
      • Geographical markers (סימן בתוך סימן) – Rashbam notes that Tanakh often "gives signs upon signs" to mark the exact location of a place.48
      •  Poetic Doubling (פסוקי דשמואל)49 – 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.50
      • Parallelism (כפל לשון) – Similarly, Rashbam notes that it is the way of Tanakh to repeat an idea in synonymous parallels.51  In such cases, one need not assume that each half of the verse is coming to teach something new.52
      • Names and references – Rashbam observes that it is common in Tanakh for a sister to be called after the name of her older brother53 or a messenger to be referred to by the name of the one who sent him.54  He further notes that when listing people, males will generally be named before females55 and those who are more important before those of lesser stature.56
      • 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)57 or "גם" (Bereshit 24:25),58 leave out the word "אשר" (Bereshit 18:5), or  to use androgynous forms.59
      • 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).60
    • 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), 41:10 (regarding kingly titles such as Paroh and Avimelekh),61 41:45 (regarding the custom to grant a newly appointed servant a new name),62 or 47:21 (regarding population displacement).63
    • 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).64  Moshe lifted his hands and staff when the people battled Amalek since banners boost a soldier's morale (Shemot 17:16). 65
    • Way of nature – See Bereshit 27:1 where Rashbam explains that Yitzchak's grew blind due to old age,66 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. See, for instance his comments to Shemot 3:22, 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.67 It is possible that other explanations, such as Rashbam's defense of the Avot, are similarly motivated.68
  • Attitude towards gentiles
  • 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, Yaakov for taking advantage of Esav when selling the birthright, or the brothers for their role in the sale of Yosef.69 It should be noted, however, that Rashbam does not always paint our ancestors as blameless,70 nor does he always paint their counterparts as evil.71
  • Authorship of Torah – In several places in Torah,72 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. Touitou73 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.74

Sources

Significant Influences

  • Relationship of Rashi –
  • Earlier Sources – 
  • Teachers – 

Occasional Usage

Possible Relationship

Impact

Later exegetes

Supercommentaries