Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Rashi’s Commentary on the Torah: Canonization and Resistance in the Reception of a Jewish Classic

2020; Eisenbrauns; Volume: 30; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês

10.5325/bullbiblrese.30.2.0306

2576-0998

Michael Graves,

Historical and Linguistic Studies

Rabbi Solomon ben Isaac (1040–1105) of Troyes (northern France), known by the acronym “Rashi,” was the greatest Jewish scholar of his era, whose writings have played a vital role in shaping Jewish thought down to the present. Rashi’s Commentary on the Torah came to be regarded as the classic Jewish exposition. Although not seen as infallible, it has become the most widely read and broadly respected Torah commentary among its peers. Eric Lawee’s Rashi’s Commentary on the Torah describes the reception of Rashi’s Commentary on its way to achieving its classic or “canonical” status. In tracing this history, Lawee provides an informative overview of major issues in medieval Jewish exegesis, as well as illuminating discussions of “traditional” versus “rational” trajectories in biblical interpretation.Lawee devotes a chapter to describing some features of Rashi’s Commentary that contributed to its complex reception (ch. 2). Chief among these features was Rashi’s combination of “plain-sense” or literary-contextual exegesis (peshat) with traditional midrashic exegesis as found in the Talmud and classical midrashim (derash). Although the center of gravity for philological scholarship and rationalist philosophy was Spain and its environs (i.e., Sefardic Jewish communities), interest in peshat exegesis manifested itself in Germany and northern France as well (i.e., Ashkenazi Jewry). Rashi played a significant role in pioneering “plain sense” exegesis for this context. At the same time, Rashi made frequent use of midrash, selecting and adapting his sources, to be sure, but also affirming the authority of the sages without questioning their supernatural explanations and fanciful exegesis. Rashi’s particular way of balancing the new peshat exegetical impulse and traditional derash made the Commentary eminently useful and set the stage for its increasing influence.Chapter 2 offers a broad survey of the reception of Rashi’s Commentary from Rashi’s death in 1105 to the publication of Elijah Mizrahi’s “supercommentary” on Rashi in 1527. In medieval Ashkenaz, the Commentary received favorable reception from the beginning, with Rashi’s authority generally increasing over time (with exceptions, of course), such that in the traditional requirement of reading the biblical text twice and the Targum once for the weekly Torah portion, Rashi’s Commentary came to be seen as a valid substitute for the Targum. Among Sefardic Jews, many soon began reading “Rabbi Solomon the Frenchman,” but scholars such as Ibn Ezra (1089–1164) and Nahmanides (1194–1270) were critical of the Commentary’s uncritical acceptance of the fabulous elements in midrash, although each of these commentators found esoteric meanings in Scripture, whether in connection with astrology (Ibn Ezra) or kabbalah (Naḥmanides). In southern France, Jewish exegetes such as the grammarian David Kimḥi (1160–1235) also interacted with Rashi, sometimes critically, but generally in a respectful manner. The various nuances of appreciation and criticism of Rashi cannot be described in detail here, but Lawee does a commendable job introducing a variety of exegetical debates that arose from interacting with Rashi’s Commentary in new cultural settings. The prominent place of the Commentary among early Hebrew printed books is also discussed.Chapter 3, “Interpreting the Interpreter,” surveys the development of supercommentary on Rashi’s Commentary, that is, commentaries that seek to explain Rashi’s interpretations in terms of their textual starting points, sources, and import. Numerous readers appropriated Rashi’s exegesis but “updated” it to suit their own contexts better. Especially interesting is the practice among rationalistic interpreters (typically Sefardic and Maimonidean) of pursuing “plain sense” exegesis instead of midrash wherever the midrash derives from a linguistic peculiarity or unexpected narrative detail, but developing an allegorical interpretation when the plain meaning of the words suggests something contrary to reason.In chs. 4 through 6, Lawee provides detailed discussions of readers who resisted the increasing authority of Rashi’s Commentary. Eleazar Ashkenazi ben Natan ha-Bavli of the Jewish community in Crete, where Sefardic influence was prominent, wrote a work called Ṣafenat pa’neaḥ (“Revealer of Secrets”) sometime around 1360–70 AD, which openly ridiculed Rashi’s exegesis as absurd for its naive acceptance of midrash and its unscientific worldview (ch. 4). Another harsh critic of Rashi’s Commentary was the author of Sefer hassagot (“The Book of Strictures”), written prior to 1410 under an assumed name, which likewise censured Rashi for his midrashic interpretations. For example, Rashi is criticized for a moral exposition based on the defective spelling of a Hebrew name, the report of a supernatural story to resolve apparently contradictory verses, the identification of anonymous characters with well-known figures, and anachronistic interpretations, such as the claim that Lot observed the Passover. According to the author of Sefer hassagot, the “plain sense” meaning of the Torah is obvious and can be verified easily by the Torah itself when it is read contextually. Still, this same author occasionally proposed nonliteral interpretations, such as his reading of Gen 1 and its midrashic reflections as a description of the physical processes outlined in Aristotle’s Meteorology (ch. 5). The third “resistance reader” of Rashi’s Commentary is Aaron Aboulrabi, who composed a work titled Perushim le-rashi (“Commentaries on Rashi”) around 1525. Aboulrabi denounces Rashi’s use of midrash in various interesting ways, while still affirming the authority of rabbinic tradition in matters of practice (ch. 6). Each of these critics attests to the growing authority of the Commentary by their rhetoric.Chapter 7 describes how Rashi’s Commentary on the Torah maintained its status as the most authoritative Jewish Torah commentary, even as traditions flowing from Maimonides, Ibn Ezra, and (to some extent) even the resistance readers continued to exert influence. A section is devoted to Elijah Mizrahi’s adulatory supercommentary on Rashi’s Commentary, which has become the classic explanation of Rashi’s exegesis. The chapter concludes with a section called “Commentary Triumphant.” An afterward reflects on Rashi’s Commentary in modern times.I enthusiastically recommend this book as providing a valuable orientation to late medieval and early modern Jewish biblical exegesis, which represents a “golden age” well worth the attention of modern scholars of the Bible. Illuminating discussions among the various medieval exegetes on the interpretation of specific biblical passages are found throughout.Rashi as a commentator emerges as an ambassador on behalf of traditional rabbinic Judaism for his own generation and those to come. Contrasting Rashi with his resistance readers, Lawee says: “Following a distinction drawn by Moshe Idel, one can associate the resisting readers with a ‘second order elite’ who, not bearing the burden of communal leadership, were able to wander and speak as they wished, exercising a different conception of hermeneutic responsibility than Rashi” (p. 258). For the resistance readers, hermeneutic responsibility meant speaking the truth, however unpopular it might be. From this vantage point, those who followed Rashi’s path might be seen as pandering to the masses. But for those operating in Rashi’s mode, hermeneutic responsibility meant reading the biblical text with current interests in view, while still maintaining confidence in the traditional religious authority that sustains the community. All of this is worthy of careful reflection for today’s readers.