INTRODUCTION
Rashi’s commentary on the Torah is the most popular but least understood of all the great commentaries. It is studied by young and old, by novice and scholar, and is mentioned in nearly every speech and article about the weekly Torah reading, not to mention in nearly every speech and article about any topic in the Torah at all. Yet, Rashi’s commentary is rarely explained fully, and oftentimes, regrettably mis-explained. Many times, Rashi’s commentary is used merely as a convenient reference; it is easier to find a statement of our Sages in Rashi than it is to find it in the large tomes of Talmud or Midrash from which he quotes it. Other times, when an attempt is made to explain Rashi’s comment, it is done in the context of Talmud and Midrash, but not in context of Rashi’s commentary itself, which is a separate, albeit strongly connected, entity. What is the source of Rashi’s comment in the text of the Torah, rather than in the “mathematics” of Midrash, Talmud and their commentaries? How does this particular Rashi comment relate to other comments that he makes on related verses? What are the inner dynamics that connect one part of a long comment to the others? These questions are often left untouched, as the speaker or writer builds a beautiful structure of picturesque midrashim and profound Talmudic logic. Some speakers and writers commit an even greater “crime”: They present Rashi’s comment, raise a question on it, and then proceed to say that the verse must be interpreted differently. No attempt is made to give Rashi the “courtesy” of attempting to answer the question!
Rashi’s incredible accomplishment
The truth is that Rashi’s comments on the Torah deserve and demand our fullest and most diligent attention. Rashi’s grandson, Rabeinu Tam, was a supreme and courageous genius of Talmud and halacha; his resolutions of apparent contradictions in the Talmud often “create” new laws, many of which have been codified and observed for centuries. Rabeinu Tam never hesitated to disagree in Talmudic debate with his illustrious grandfather. Yet, when it came to Rashi’s commentary on the Torah, Rabeinu Tam felt that he could not compete:
That which my master, my grandfather, explained the Talmud, I also could do; but his commentary on Scripture is not within my powers, for I could not do it.
If Rabeinu Tam felt that he could not approach his grandfather’s capabilities as an exegete of Scripture, then certainly we must not approach Rashi’s commentary as nothing more than a convenient treasury of beloved statements from our Sages.
Aspects of Rashi’s commentary that deserve attention
The serious attention that must be directed toward Rashi’s commentary can be divided into numerous categories. The following is a list of some of the areas that must be explored, particularly those which are discussed in this book.
• Rashi’s sources must be explored, and they must be identified in Scripture itself, not merely in Talmud and Midrash. Rashi did not write an introduction to his commentary, and he rarely discusses his methodology in an explicit way. The one great principle that he does share with us is in his comments to Shemos 33:13. Rashi explains several verses there according to his own understanding of their simple and direct meaning, even though the Talmud clearly explains them differently! Rashi “apologizes” with the following statement:
Our Rabbis expounded [these verses differently] in tractate Brachos [7a], but I have come to resolve the verses according to their context and their sequence.
There are many ramifications to this statement by Rashi. Perhaps most important is that we must seek the sources of Rashi’s comments not primarily in Talmud and Midrash, but rather in Scripture itself. Even when Rashi quotes the Sages explicitly, it does not mean that he is accepting their interpretation on authority. Rather, it means that after careful analysis of the verse, Rashi has concluded that the Sages’ interpretation is the simple and direct meaning, and not a homiletical insight that is perhaps only tangentially relevant to the text.
•We must explore the possibility that Rashi has quoted a statement of our Sages, but he has adapted it for his own purposes.
•We must explore Rashi’s placement of his comments. Usually, Rashi places a comment in the first possible place, but sometimes he waits. Sometimes he quotes a comment of our Sages on the same verse that they commented on, while other times he places the comment elsewhere.
•We must explore Rashi’s dibur hamas’chil, the words from Scripture that Rashi quotes and highlights at the beginning of his comments. These indicate the exact words in Scripture that Rashi intends to explain.
•Most of Rashi’s comments are in response to an implicit, unwritten question that he had on the text. Therefore, we must explore the text of Scripture to find the questions that “bothered” Rashi and led him to make a comment.
•When Rashi does occasionally write a question explicitly, we must explore the reason why he has abandoned his usual habit of relying on implicit questions.
•We must explore Rashi’s grammatical and etymological explanations and strive to understand how they affect the simple meaning of Scripture.
•Rashi usually focuses on the verse that is “in front” of him, not on later verses in Scripture. When Rashi occasionally “breaks” this rule and discusses later verses, we must explore his reasons for doing so.
•There are some topics which Rashi generally avoids, because Scripture itself does not usually discuss them; among these topics are halachic details, the reasons for mitzvos, and the correct counting of the Torah’s 613 commandments. When Rashi does occasionally discuss these topics, we must explore how they assisted him in clarifying the simple meaning of Scripture.
•Rashi often states his main point in the first few words of his comment; everything that he writes afterward is only meant to strengthen his original point. Therefore, we must examine the first few words of each Rashi comment with extra care, and we must explore the inner dynamics of some of his longer comments.
•We must be aware that Rashi wrote a complete commentary. One ramification of this is that we should not assume that one Rashi comment contradicts another. Rather, we must explore, as much as possible, the probability that Rashi is not merely quoting two different opinions,but rather is presenting us with a unified understanding of Scripture.
•When Rashi does not comment on a verse, we should not assume that he had nothing interesting to say about it, or that he expected us to look at other commentaries. Since Rashi wrote a complete commentary, we must explore how every verse in the Torah--including those that Rashi does not comment on--can be explained either by common sense or by referencing Rashi’s comments on other verses. The goal of our study of Rashi’s commentary must be to arrive at an understanding of everything in the Torah, on the level of peshuto shel mikra - the simple meaning of Scripture, which is the level that Rashi discusses.
•Needless to say, Rashi knew all the same sources that his detractors did, and he was capable of answering the questions that they raised on his commentary. Therefore, we must explore ways to resolve the problems that other commentators raised on Rashi.
Exploring Rashi on a technical level and on a content level
All of these areas of exploration are on what could be called the technical level. They help us understand Rashi’s meaning in the way that a Chinese-English dictionary would help us to understand a text written in Chinese. They allow us to achieve a clear understanding of what Rashi’s interpretation of the verse is. They do not, in themselves, tell us the ethical, psychological, spiritual, philosophical, or historical ramifications of Rashi’s interpretation. All of these angles also must be explored if we are to arrive at a full appreciation of a Rashi comment.
It is difficult to establish “rules” for these explorations in the way that we can establish them for exploring the technical side of Rashi. There are certain sefarim which often delve into these explorations; among them are: Gur Aryeh, Maskil L’David, Imrei Shefer, Be’er Basadeh, Likutei Sichos, Understanding Rashi, and a contemporary work that I have only recently merited to sample, B’ikvos Rashi.
One principle that we can learn from all of these works is that the philosophical aspects of understanding Rashi are not detached from the technical aspects. A really good philosophical insight to a Rashi comment should not ignore the rigorous application of the technical methods that we have discussed above; rather, the best philosophical ideas are those that flow directly from a rigorous technical analysis. This is why a serious student of Rashi must be somewhat wary of the great library of Chassidic works that often base their philosophical ideas on interpretations of Rashi. Although the ideas of these Chasidic masters are profound and inspiring, they are not always based on a peshat-level analysis of Rashi’s intent. As such, they often belong to a separate, and very important, genre of thought, but not to the genre of serious interpretation of Rashi on his own terms.
An invitation
The author of his book knows very well that he has not fully explored any of the aforementioned aspects of Rashi’s commentary. He sees this book as an invitation to the reader to join him in explorations of Rashi’s commentary--and perhaps to take these explorations even farther than he was able to. As Shlomo Hamelech said (Mishlei 9:9), “Give instruction to a wise man and he will become even wiser.”
No comments:
Post a Comment