Three Notes on Rashi
Rashi's biography
The first problem is dramatized by a rabbi who delivered a rather long lecture in which he introduced his congregants to this French commentator Rashi. He mentioned Rashi's date of birth as 1040 although this is uncertain, and his date of death as 1105, even though the first mention of this date is in a document written about two centuries after the scholar's death. Unable to relate any facts, the rabbi told legends that he obviously found in some book written for children. He awed his audience with a narration of miraculous events associated with Rashi's birth. He described how Rashi made his money by growing vines and bottling wines, when there is no evidence that this is true. Eli Wiesel in his recent biography of Rashi recognized this problem and wrote: "Yes, we need imagination in order to write about him."
Rashi's Bible commentary
Hardly any of Rashi's comments on the Bible are original. Virtually all of his comments are based on the Targums and Midrashim. Rashi used Targum Onkelos for the plain meaning of the Pentateuch words. He averages several usages of Onkelos on every page, sometimes naming the Targum, but more frequently not. He uses his rewrites of the Midrashim for most of his other comments.
While scholars and people interested in the meaning of words enjoy seeing how Rashi used Onkelos, more readers of Rashi are fascinated by his use of the Midrashim. Rashi rewrote the midrashic comments in his own words that are a delight to read. Rashi drew fascinating stories from Midrashim and placed them into his commentary. Reading these midrashic tales as children was quite exciting. Midrashim are books that collected fanciful engaging stories that were generally written as parables and teaching aids - enjoyable and sometimes even exciting accounts - that for the most part were never intended to be understood as true history or the true meaning of scriptural passages. However, Rashi and others took these tales as true facts and used them to explain the Bible.
Thus, for example, Rashi introduced his readers to the midrashic report that God made Abraham's son Isaac look exactly like him so that people could not say that Abraham was too old to have children and his wife Sarah must have had her son from the Philistine king Elimelekh who had abducted her.
Or, another example, the patriarch Jacob was concerned that his soon to be father in law Laban would substitute Leah in place of her sister, his beloved Rachel, on their wedding night; so he and Rachel agreed on a code that she would mention in the dark, and Jacob would know that it was she. But Rachel gave the code to Leah and Jacob was fooled after all. It is hard to forget stories like these, stories learnt as children. And what is more, Rashi, as we said, had a very pleasing writing style, and he improved the narratives by rewriting the Midrashim in a more lucid, colorful and understandable manner.
Rashi's grandson, Rashbam, who wrote a generally rational Bible commentary, criticized his grandfather for inserting these midrashic explanations into his commentary. He chastised him for not sticking to the plain meaning of the biblical passages. In Rashbam's commentary on Genesis 37:1, he told his readers that he upbraided his grandfather for the way he explained the Torah, and that Rashi assured him that he agreed with him. Rashi said that if he had years to write a new commentary, he would write it like Rashbam wrote his commentary.
In Genesis 49:17, where Rashi states that the verse is referring to the judge Samson, who would not be born for another couple of centuries, Rashbam pointedly writes that anyone who thinks that 49:17 is speaking about Samson doesn't understand the Torah.
Again, in Deuteronomy 15:18, Scripture mandates that a slave owner must give his Hebrew slave gifts when he sets the slave free. The Torah continues: "It should not seem hard to you ... because he gave you double the service of a hired man." There are several interpretations of the term "double." Rashi (based on Sifrei) proposes that Scripture's "double" means that Hebrew slaves work day and night while a hired employee works only during the day; the nighttime work is when the master gives the slave a Canaanite slave so that he can have children from the union that would belong to him as slaves. Ibn Ezra and Bekhor Shor offer a different notion. They say that the master should harbor no hard feelings because the slave works for three years longer than a person is permitted to hire himself out, double the hired worker. Rashbam calls these interpretations "foolish" and "vapor." The plain meaning of the verse, he says, is that the "master" should not feel bad in having paid for the slave twice, first when he purchased the slave and now when he must also give him gifts.
The great eleventh century rationalist Abraham ibn Ezra, who lived around the same time, wrote mockingly: Rashi states that he translates the Torah according to its plain meaning and he is correct - one time out of a thousand.
Rashi following the approach of Rabbi Akiva
Probably the most significant fact that people need to know about Rashi is his usage of the methodology of Rabbi Akiva. The midrashic tales that Rashi tells are engaging, but why did he write them? Yes, he thought they were facts, but he tells his readers repeatedly that he intended to offer Scripture's plain meaning. Why then did he feel obliged to include Midrashim?
There were two outstanding rabbinic figures in the second century who argued about how the Bible was written and how it should be understood. Rabbi Akiva, whose ideas were generally accepted by many rabbis, including Rashi and many Midrashim, insisted that the Bible is a document in which every word, even every letter, was composed by God.God is all-knowing and infallible; thus the document He composed, the Torah, must not have any superfluous words or letters; God said exactly what he meant to say, no more and no less. If a biblical verse seems to repeat itself, the seeming repetition must be saying something that is not in the first phrase.
Rabbi Ishmael had an opposite view. He argued that the Bible was composed for people and must have been written in ways that people could understand. Like people talk, the Torah contains metaphors and other figures of speech that should not be taken literally; it has hyperbole; it repeats ideas for various reasons, including emphasis, just as humans do. While great sages like Rashi follow Rabbi Akiva's methodology, people like Saadiah Gaon, Rashbam, ibn Ezra and Maimonides accepted the second approach.
Once Rashi's approach to Torah is known, it becomes clear why Rashi wrote what he did. He saw words in the Torah that seemed to him to be superfluous or seemed like an exaggeration, and he felt obliged to explain the verse according to its plain meaning as he understood it using Rabbi Akiva's methodology.
For example, In Deuteronomy 13:5, the Torah states that the Israelites should serve God and cleave to Him. Rabbi Ishmael would see these apparently two statements as expressing a single idea, to worship God. However, Sifrei and Rashi, following Rabbi Akiva's methodology, saw the Bible speaking about two acts. The first means serve God in His sanctuary or Temple, and the second the obligation to behave properly in daily life.
Ibn Ezra, to cite another example, following the methodology of Rabbi Ishmael, notes that Deuteronomy 13:6 mentions that the Israelites were both "freed" and "redeemed," and states that the Torah is speaking of a single act, but the Torah uses the two verbs to strengthen its argument. Sifrei and Rashi, following the way of Rabbi Akiva, understand the verse to say: even if God only "freed" you, it would have been sufficient reason to obey Him; now that He also "redeemed" you, how much more are you obligated to obey Him.
In Deuteronomy 14:22, Scripture states that farmers should take out a tithe shanah shanah, literally, "year, year." Targum Onkelos retains the idiom, which means "every year." However, Rashi and Sifrei state that the repetition teaches that the tithe of each year must be given in the year of tithing. A person may not take the tenth of a prior year from the following year or years.
In Deuteronomy 14:24, the Bible writes, "Should the distance be too great for you, should you be unable to transport it (the tithe), because the place is too far from you...because the Lord your God has blessed you." Rashi, following the methodology of Rabbi Akiva, does not see "because the Lord your God has blessed you" as an explanation of "because the place is too far for you" - meaning that God blessed you by giving you much land, some of which is very far from Jerusalem. He sees each as a separate idea: You are unable to bring the produce to Jerusalem either because the distance is too large or because God blessed you with an abundance of produce that is too heavy to carry.
In Deuteronomy 15:5, the Torah repeats "hear," twice. As usual, when shema, "hear," is used by the Torah as a figure of speech for "accept," the Targums insert the later to explain the passage. Rashi, citing Sifrei, contends that the repetition of the words, shamo'a tishma, is not done for emphasis, as Rabbi Ishmael would contend, but implies that if people "hear" a little - show an inclination to obey - they will "hear" much - they will be caused to obey many commands.
Why does the Torah use the term mei'ahad, "one of," before ahekha "your brothers" in Deuteronomy 15:7, "one of your kinsmen"? Couldn't Scripture simply say ahekha? Sifrei and Rashi, following the methodology of Rabbi Akiva that every word has independent meaning, translate ahekha literally, as "brother," rather than a metaphor for "kinsman," and say that the word mei'ahad teaches that your paternal half brother takes precedence over your maternal half brother.
As in 15:5, Scripture doubles the verb for the sake of emphasis: patoah tiftah in 15:8, "must surely open." Sifrei and Rashi state that the repetition teaches that people should give charity "even a hundred times." Ibn Ezra calls this interpretation derash.
As in the prior phrase, the Torah doubles v'ha'aveit taavitenu, "surely lend him," again in 15:8, to emphasize that people should surely lend money to the poor. However, Rashi and Sifrei again explain the "extra" word: first try to give the charity as a gift and then, if the poor person refuses to accept charity, lend him what he needs.
Thus, while it is interesting and entertaining to read Rashi's comments, especially when they include a midrashic tale, readers cannot really understand why Rashi is saying what he says unless they realize what prompted him to make the interesting remark.
