Rashi .....................................................................................................................................................................1

Maurice Liber ...........................................................................................................................................1

INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................2

BOOK I. RASHI THE MAN ................................................................................................................................3

CHAPTER I. THE JEWS OF FRANCE IN THE ELEVENTH CENTURY .........................................3

CHAPTER II. THE YOUTH AND EDUCATION OF RASHI .............................................................8

CHAPTER III. RASHI AT TROYESLAST YEARS........................................................................16

CHAPTER IV. CHARACTER AND LEARNING OF RASHI ...........................................................24

BOOK II. THE WORK OF RASHI..................................................................................................................29

CHAPTER V. THE COMMENTARIESGENERAL CHARACTERISTICS...................................29

CHAPTER VI. THE BIBLICAL COMMENTARIES .........................................................................34

CHAPTER VII. THE TALMUDIC COMMENTARIES .....................................................................48

CHAPTER VIII. THE RESPONSA.....................................................................................................59

CHAPTER IX. WORKS COMPOSED UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF RASHI ..............................62

CHAPTER X. POETRY ATTRIBUTED TO RASHI.........................................................................64

BOOK III. THE INFLUENCE OF RASHI.......................................................................................................66

FRANCE ................................................................................................................................................66

PRESENT TIME..................................................................................................................................76

CONCLUSION .....................................................................................................................................80

APPENDIX I........................................................................................................................................81

APPENDIX II. BIBLIOGRAPHY.......................................................................................................82

PREFACE Some months ago the Jewish world celebrated the eight hundredth anniversary of the

death of Rashi, who died at Troyes in 1105. On that occasion those whose knowledge authorizes them to

speak gave eloquent accounts of his life and work. Science and devotion availed themselves of every possible

mediumlectures and books, journals and reviewsto set forth all we owe to the illustrious Rabbi. The writer

ventures to express the hope that in the present volume he has made at least a slight contribution toward

discharging the common debt of the Jewish nationthat it is not utterly unworthy of him whose name it bears.

This volume, however, is not a product of circumstances; it was not written on the occasion of the centenary

celebration. It was designed to form one of the series of the biographies of Jewish Worthies planned by the

JEWISH PUBLICATION SOCIETY OF AMERICA, the first issue of which was devoted to Maimonides.

The biography of Rashi is the second of the series. It is not for the author to endorse the order adopted, but he

hazards the opinion that the readers will find the portrait of Rashi no unfitting companionpiece even to that

of the author of the Moreh. Jewish history may include minds more brilliant and works more original than

Rashi's. But it is incontestable that he is one of those historical personages who afford a double interest; his

own personality is striking and at the same time he is the representative of a civilization and of a period. He

has this double interest for us to an eminent degree. His physiognomy has wellmarked, individual features,

and yet he is the best exponent of French Judaism in the middle ages. He is somebody, and he represents

something. Through this double claim, he forms an integral part of Jewish history and literature. There are

great men who despite their distinguished attributes stand apart from the general intellectual movements.

They can be estimated without reference to an historical background. Rashi forms, so to say, an organic part

of Jewish history. A whole department of Jewish literature would be enigmatical without him. Like a star

which leaves a track of light in its passage across the skies, Rashi aroused the enthusiasm of his

contemporaries, but no less was he admired and venerated by posterity, and today, after the lapse of eight

centuries, he is, as the poet says, "still young in glory and immortality." His name is most prominently

connected with Rabbinical literature. Whether large questions are dealt with, or the minutest details are

considered, it is always Rashi who is referred tohe has a share in all its destinies, and he seems inseparable

from it forever. It is this circumstance that makes the writing of his biography as awkward a task for the

writer as reading it may be for the public. To write it one must be a scholar, to read it a specialist. To know

Rashi well is as difficult as it is necessary. Singularly enough, popular as he was, he was essentially a

Talmudist, and at no time have connoisseurs of the Talmud formed a majority. This is the reason why

historians like Graetz, though they dilate upon the unparalleled qualities of Rashi's genius, can devote only a

disproportionately small number of pages to him and his works. Though the writer has throughout been aware

of the difficulties inherent in his task, yet he is also conscious that he has sometimes succeeded in removing

them only by eluding them. In parts, when the matter to be treated was unyielding, it became necessary to

dwell on side issues, or fill up gaps and replace obscurities by legends and hypotheses. The object in view

being a book popular in character and accessible to all, technical discussions had to be eschewed. Many

knotty points had to be brushed aside lightly, and the most debatable points passed over in silence. These are

the sacrifices to which one must resign himself, though it requires selfrestraint to do it consistently. The

reader may, therefore, not expect to find new data in these pages, new facts and texts not published before. If

the book has any merit, it is that it presents the actual state of knowledge on the subject, and the author

anticipates the charge of plagiarism by disclaiming any intention of producing an original work. Recondite

sources have not always been referred to, in order not to overload a text which at best is apt to tax the reader's

powers of attention. Such references and special remarks as were deemed necessary have been incorporated

either in Notes placed at the end of the book, or in an Appendix containing a bibliography. There the works

are mentioned to which the author is chiefly indebted, and which his readers may profitably consult if they

desire to pursue the subject further. The author desires to express his appreciation of the work of the

translator, whose collaboration was all the more valuable as the revision of the book had to be made, after an

interval of almost two years, under most unfavorable conditions, aggravated by the distance between the

writer and the place of publication. The readers will themselves judge of the skill with which the translator

has acquitted herself of her task, and the author gladly leaves to her the honor and the responsibility for the

translation. But how can I express all I owe to M. Israel Levi, my honored master? Without him this work

would never have been begun, without him I should never have dared carry it to completion. I have

contracted a debt toward him 'which grows from day to day, and I discharge but the smallest portion of it by

dedicating this volume to the memory of his nevertobeforgotten fatherinlaw, the GrandRabbin

ZadocKahn. M. ZadocKahn made a name for himself in Jewish letters by his Etudes sur le livre de Joseph

le Zelateur, dealing with one of the most curious domains of that literature in which Rashi was the foremost

representative. One of his last public acts was the appeal which he issued on the occasion of the Rashi

centenary. It is not a slight satisfaction to me to know that these pages passed under his eyes in manuscript.

A people honors itself in honoring the great men who have interpreted its thought, who are the guardians of

its genius. It thus renders merited homage and pays just tribute to those who have increased the treasures of

its civilization and added a new feature to its moral physiognomy; it establishes the union of ideas that

assures the conservation of the national genius, and maintains and perpetuates the consciousness of the

nation. Finally, it manifests consciousness of its future in taking cognizance of its past, and in turning over

the leaves of its archives, it defines its part and mission in history. The study of men and facts in the past

permits of a sounder appreciation of recent efforts, of present tendencies; for "humanity is always composed

of more dead than living," and usually "the past is what is most vital in the present."

No people has greater need than the Jews to steep itself again in the sources of its existence, and no period

more than the present imposes upon it the duty of bringing its past back to life. Scattered over the face of the

globe, no longer constituting a body politic, the Jewish people by cultivating its intellectual patrimony creates

for itself an ideal fatherland; and mingled, as it is, with its neighbors, threatened by absorption into

surrounding nations, it recovers a sort of individuality by the reverence it pays to men that have given best

But the Jewish people, its national life crushed out of it, though deprived of all political ambitions, has yet

regained a certain national solidarity through community of faith and ideals; and it has maintained the

cohesion of its framework by the wholly spiritual bonds of teaching and charity. This is the picture it presents

throughout the middle ages, during the period which, for Christianity, marked an eclipse of the intellect and,

as it were, an enfeeblement of the reason to such a degree that the term middle ages becomes synonymous

with intellectual decadence. "But," said the historian Graetz, "while the sword was ravaging the outer world,

and the people devoted themselves to murderous strife, the house of Jacob cared only that the light of the

mind burn on steadily and that the shadows of darkness be dissipated. If a religion may be judged by its

principal representatives, the palm must be awarded to Judaism in the tenth to the thirteenth century." Its

scholars, therefore, its philosophers, and its poets render Judaism illustrious, and by their works and their

Maimonides is one of those eminent spirits in whom was reflected the genius of the Jewish people and who

have in turn contributed to the development of its genius.[1] Maimonides, however, was also more than this;

perhaps he presents as much of interest from the point of view of Arabic as of Jewish culture; and expressing

more than the Jewish ideal, he does not belong to the Jews entirely. Of Rashi, on the contrary, one may say

that he is a Jew to the exclusion of everything else. He is no more than a Jew, no other than a Jew.

Great men and Rashi, as we shall see, may be counted among their number arrive at opportune times.

Sometimes we congratulate them for having disappeared from history in good season; it would be just as

reasonable, or, rather, just as unreasonable, to be grateful to them for having come at exactly the right

juncture of affairs. The great man, in fact, is the man of the moment; he comes neither too soon, which spares

him from fumbling over beginnings and so clogging his own footsteps, nor too late, which prevents him from

imitating a model and so impeding the development of his personality. He is neither a precursor nor an

epigone, neither a forerunner nor a latecomer. He neither breaks the ground nor gleans the harvest: he is the

It is, therefore, of some avail for us to devote several pages to the history of the Jews of Northern France in

the eleventh century, especially in regard to their intellectual state and more especially in regard to their

rabbinical culture. If another reason were needed to justify this preamble, I might invoke a principle long ago

formulated and put to the test by criticism, namely, that environment is an essential factor in the makeup of

a writer, and an intellectual work is always determined, conditioned by existing circumstances. The principle

applies to Rashi, of whom one may say, of whom in fact Zunz has said, he is the representative par

In the great migratory movement beginning at the dawn of the Christian era, which scattered the Jews to the

four corners of the globe, and which was accentuated and precipitated by the misfortunes that broke over the

population of Palestine, France, or, more exactly, Gaul, was colonized by numbers of Jews. If we believe in

the right of the first occupant, we ought to consider the French Jews more French than many Frenchmen.

Conversions must at first have been numerous, and the number of apostates kept pace with the progress of

In the south of France, there were Jewish communities before the fifth century; in Burgundy and Touraine, in

the first half of the sixth century; and in Austrasia, at the end of the same century. From the Provence, they

Although disturbed at times by the canons of various distrustful Church councils, or by the sermons of a few

vehement bishops, the Jews on the whole led a peaceful, though not a very prosperous, existence, which has

left scarcely any traces in history and literature. Aside from a few unimportant names and facts, these

centuries mark a gap in the history of the Jews of France, as in that of their Christian neighbors; and

literature, as it always does, followed the political and economic destinies of the nation. From the fifth to the

tenth century, letters fell into utter decay, despite the momentary stimulus given by Charlemagne. The human

intellect, to borrow from Guizot, had reached the nadir of its course. This epoch, however, was not entirely

lost to civilization. The Jews applied themselves to studies, the taste for which developed more and more

strongly. If as yet they could not fly with their own wings, they remained in relation with the centres [centers

sic] of rabbinical life, the academies in Babylonia, exchanging the products of the mind at the same time that

they bartered merchandise. This slow process of incubation was perforce fruitful of results.

It was in the tenth century, when the political and social troubles that had agitated Europe since the fall of the

Roman Empire were calmed, that the Jews came forth from their semi obscurity, either because their

numbers had increased, or because their position had become more stable, or because they were ready, after

At this time, the Jews of Northern France nearly without exception enjoyed happy conditions of existence.

From their literature, rather scholarly than popular, we learn chiefly of their schools and their rabbis; yet we

also learn from it that their employments were the same as those of the other inhabitants of the country. They

were engaged in trade, many attaining wealth; and a number devoted themselves to agriculture. They

possessed fields and vineyards, for neither the ownership of land nor residence in the country was forbidden

them; and they were also employed in cattle raising. Often they took Christians into their service.

But the Jews, although they attached themselves to the soil and tried to take root there, were essentially an

urban population. They owned real estate and devoted themselves to all sorts of industries. They were

allowed to be workmen and to practice every handicraft, inasmuch as the guilds, those associations, partly

religious in character, which excluded the Jews from their membership rolls, did not begin to be established

until the twelfth century. Sometimes a Jew was entrusted with a public office, as a rule that of collector of

taxes. Not until later, about the twelfth century, when forced by men and circumstances, did the Jews make a

The strength of the Jews resided in the fact that they were organized in communities, which were marked by

intense solidarity, and in which harmony and tranquillity [tranquility sic] were assured by the rabbinical

institutions. Failure to respect these institutions was punished by excommunicationa severe penalty, for the

excommunicated man encountered the hate of his coreligionists and was driven to baptism.[3]

At the head of the communities were provosts (praepositi), charged with surveillance over their interests, and

doubtless their representatives before the civil authority. Many Jews were highly esteemed by the kings or

seigneurs, holding positions of honor and bearing honorific titles; but in general the Jews of France, unlike

those of Spain, were not permitted to take part in the government, or even have a share in the political life of

the nation. They contented themselves with the enjoyment of the fruits of their labor and the peaceful practice

of their religion. They were the less disturbed because they lived under a special regime. Being neither

French nor Christian, they were therefore not citizens; they formed a state within the state, or rather a colony

within the state, and, being neither nobles nor serfs, they did not have to render military service. They

administered their internal affairs, and in general were not amenable to civil or ecclesiastical legislation. For

the solution of their legal difficulties they applied to the rabbinical tribunals. In all other respects they were

dependent upon the lord of the lands upon which they established themselves, provided they were not under

the tutelle et mainbournie of the king. In either case they had to pay taxes and constitute themselves a

The Jews lived on a basis of good understanding with their neighbors, and came into frequent intercourse

with them. Even the clergy maintained relations with Jewish scholars. It was the incessant efforts of the

higher ecclesiastics and of the papacy that little by little created animosity against the Jews, which at the

epoch of Rashi was still not very apparent. The collections of canonical law by force of tradition renewed the

The Jews throughout France spoke French; and they either had French names or gave their Hebrew names a

French form. In the rabbinical writings cities are designated by their real names, or by Hebrew names more or

less ingeniously adapted from the Latin or Romance. With the secularization of their names, the Jews

adopted, at least partially, the customs and, naturally, also the superstitions of their countrymen. The valuable

researches of Gudemann and Israel Levi show how much the folklore of the two races have in common.

Moreover, when two peoples come in contact, no matter how great the differences distinguishing them, they

are bound to exert mutual influence upon each other. No impervious partitions exist in sociology.

It would thus be an anachronism to represent the Jews of the eleventh century as pale and shabby, ever

bearing the look of hunted animals, shamefaced, depressed by clerical hate, royal greed, and the brutality of

the masses. In the Jewries of France at this time there was nothing sad or sombre, [somber sic] no straitlaced

orthodoxy, no jargon, no disgraceful costume, none of that gloomy isolation betokening distrust, scorn, and

The practical activity of the Jews, their business interests, and their consequent wealth did not stifle

intellectual ideals. On the contrary, thanks to the security assured them, they could devote themselves to

study. Their rich literature proves they could occupy themselves at the same time with mental and material

pursuits. "For a people to produce scholars, it is necessary that it be composed of something other than

hardhearted usurers and sordid business men. The literary output is a thorough test of social conditions."[5]

Moreover, the intellectual status of a people always bears relation to its material and economic condition, and

so, where the Jews enjoyed most liberty and happiness, their literature has been richest and most brilliant.

From an intellectual point of view the Jews resembled the people among whom they lived. Like them, they

were pious, even extremely devout; and they counted few unbelievers among their number. Sometimes it

happened that a religious person failed to obey precepts, but no one contested the foundations of belief. In the

matter of religion, it is true, outward observance was guarded above everything else. The Jews, settled as they

were on foreign soil, came to attach themselves to ceremonials as the surest guarantees of their faith.

Naturally superstitions prevailed at an epoch marked by a total lack of scientific spirit. People believed in the

existence of men without shadows, in evil demons, and so on. The Jews, however, were less inclined to such

conceptions than the Christians, who in every district had places of pilgrimage at which they adored spurious

It would be altogether unjust not to recognize the ethical results of the constant practice of the law, which

circumscribed the entire life of the Jew. Talmudic legislation must not be regarded, as it sometimes is, as an

oppressive yoke, an insufferable fetter. Its exactions do not make it tyrannical, because it is loyally and freely

accepted, accepted even with pleasure. The whole life of the Jew is taken into consideration beforehand, its

boundaries are marked, its actions controlled. But this submission entails no selfdenial; it is voluntary and

the reason is provided with sufficient motives. Indeed, it is remarkable what freedom and breadth thought

The high level of general instruction among the Jews was all the more remarkable since only a small number

of literary works were known. Though copies were made of those which enjoyed the greatest reputation, the

number of manuscripts was limited. Nevertheless, soon after their appearance, important productions in one

country came into the hands of scholars of other countries. Just as Christendom by force of its spiritual bond

formed a single realm, so two strong chains bound together Jews of widely separated regions: these were

their religion and their language. Communication was difficult, roads were few in number and dangerous;

yet, countervailing distance and danger was devotion to religion and to learning.

But religion and learning were one and the same thing. As was the case in Christianity, and for the same

reasons, religion filled the whole of life and engrossed all branches of knowledge. There was no such thing as

secular science; religion placed its stamp on everything, and turned the currents of thought into its own

channels. One must not hope therefore to find, among the Jews of Northern France, those literary species

which blossomed and flourished in Spain; philosophy did not exist among them, and poetry was confined to a

few dry liturgic poems. Their intellectual activity was concentrated in the study of the Bible and the Talmud;

but in this domain they acquired all the greater depth and penetration. Less varied as were the objects of their

pursuits, they excelled in what they undertook, and inferior though they were in the fields of philosophy and

poetry, they were superior in Biblical exegesis, and still more so, possibly, in Talmudic jurisprudence.

The history of the beginnings of rabbinical learning in France is wrapped in obscurity. Tradition has it that

Charlemagne caused the scholar Kalonymos to come from Lucca to Mayence. With his sons he is said to

have opened a school there, which became the centre [center sic] of Talmudic studies in Lorraine. Legends,

however slight their semblance to truth, are never purely fictitious in character; they contain an element of

truth, or, at least, symbolize the truth; and this tradition, which cannot be accepted in the shape in which it has

been handed down, seeing that Kalonymos lived in the tenth century, is nevertheless a fairly exact

representation of the continuity of the intellectual movement. If the fact is not established that Charlemagne

accomplished for the Jews what he did for the Christians, that is, revived their schools and promoted their

prosperity, it seems more certain that rabbinical learning penetrated into the northwest of Europe through the

intermediation of Italy, which bridged the gap between the Orient and the Rhine lands.

As is well known, Christian Italy during the early middle ages, despite the successive invasions of the

barbarians, remained the centre [center sic] of civilization and the storehouse of Occidental learning. It is in

Italy, without doubt, that the Romanesque style of architecture had its origin, and in Italy that the study of the

Roman law was vigorously resumed. It is to Italy also that Charlemagne turned when he sought for scholars

to place at the head of his schools. Moreover, it was on Italian soil, in the fifteenth century, that the

magnificent blossom meriting its name, the Renaissance, was destined to open and unfold its literary and

Italy owes its glorious part in the world's history both to its geographical position and its commercial

importance. So likewise with the Jews of Italy, their commercial activities contributed to their intellectual

prosperity. In the ninth century they possessed rabbinical authorities, and in the tenth century, centres [centers

sic] of Talmudic study. At this period, the celebrated family of the Kalonymides went to Lorraine to establish

itself there. For some time Mayence was the metropolis of Judaism in the Rhine countries; and by its

community the first academies were established, the first Talmudic commentaries were composed, and

decisions were made which were accepted by all the Jews of Christian Europe. Soon this intellectual activity

extended to Worms, to Speyer, and a little later to the western part of Germany and the northern part of

France.[7] A veritable renaissance took place, parallel with the movement of ideas which went on in the

schools and convents of the eleventh and four teenth centuries;[8] for Jewish culture is often bound up with

For some time the schools of Lorraine stood at the head of the Talmudic movement, and it was to them that

One of the most celebrated offspring of the family of the Kalonymides is Meshullam ben Kalonymos, who

lived at Mayence in the second half of the tenth century. He was a Talmudist held in high regard and the

composer of liturgic poetry. He devoted himself to the regulation of the material and spiritual affairs of his

brethren. Although he stood in correspondence with the Babylonian masters, he was in a position to pass

judgment independently of them. Communication with the East was frequent. The communities of France

and Germany sent disciples to the Babylonians and submitted difficulties to them. Tradition relates that the

Gaon Natronai (about 865) even visited France. However that may be, the Jews of France at an early period

Other Talmudists of the tenth century are known, but rabbinical literature may be said to have commenced

only with Gershom ben Judah (about 9601028). According to tradition his master was his contemporary Hai

Gaon; in reality he was the disciple of Judah ben Meir haCohen, surnamed Leontin (about 975). Originally

from Metz, Gershom established himself at Mayence, to which a large number of pupils from neighboring

countries soon flocked in order to attend his school. Thus he was the legatee of the Babylonian academies,

the decay of which became daily more marked. In his capacity as head of a school as in many other respects,

he was the true forerunner of Rashi, who carried on his work with greater command of the subject and with

Rabbenu Gershom not only gave Talmudic learning a fresh impetus and removed its centre [center sic] to the

banks of the Rhine, but he also exerted the greatest and most salutary influence upon the social life of his

coreligionists, through his "Decrees," religious and moral, which, partly renewing older institutions, were

accepted by all the Jews of Christian countries. Among other things, he forbade polygamy. He merits

consideration in two aspects, as a Gaon and as one to whom his disciples gave the surname which still

attaches to him, "the Light of the Exile," Meor haGolah. Rashi said of him: "Rabbenu Gershom has

enlightened the eyes of the Captivity; for we all live by his instruction; all the Jews of these countries call

Gershom seems to have been the first Rhenish scholar who resorted to the written word for the spread of his

teachings. He devoted himself to the establishment of a correct text of the Bible and the Talmud, and his chief

Since his time the continuity of learning has been uninterrupted. The seed sown by Rabbenu Gershom was

not long in germinating. Schools began to multiply and develop in Lorraine. The one at Mayence prospered

A rabbi, Machir, the brother of Gershom, by his Talmudic lexicon contributed likewise to the development of

rabbinical knowledge. His four sons were renowned scholars, contemporaries and doubtless fellowstudents

The disciples of Gershom, who continued the work of their master, are of especial interest to us, because one

of them, Simon the Elder, was the maternal uncle of Rashi, and three others were his masters. These were

Jacob ben Yakar, Isaac haLevi, and Isaac ben Judah. The latter two were disciples also of Eliezer ben Isaac

the Great, of Mayence. Jacob ben Yakar and Isaac haLevi went to Worms, where they became rabbis, while

About the middle of the eleventh century, then, an intellectual ferment took place in France and Lorraine,

earnest literary and scientific activity manifested itself, and above all elements of profound rabbinical culture

became visible. But one who should regulate these forces was lacking, a guide to direct these activities and to

serve as a model to others. In order that the movement might not come to a premature end, a master was

needed who would give it impetus and define its course, who would strike the decisive blow. Such a man

there was, a man who impressed his contemporaries as a scholar of high degree and noble character, and

Little is known concerning the life of Rashi. Owing to various causes not a single work is extant that might

be used as a guide for the establishment of minor facts. Generally speaking, Jewish literature in the middle

ages was of an impersonal character; practically no memoirs nor autobiographies of this period exist. The

disciples of the great masters were not lavish of information concerning them. They held their task to be

accomplished when they bad studied and handed on the master's works; regard for his teachings ranked above

respect for the personality of the author. But the figure of Rashi, as though in despite of all such obstacles,

has remained popular. People wanted to know all the details of his life, and they invented facts according to

their desires. Fiction, however, fell short of the truth. Legend does not represent him so great as he must

actually have been. In the present work, too, I shall be obliged to resort to comparisons and analogies, to

supplement by hypotheses the scanty information afforded by history, yet I shall distinguish the few historic

As of old many cities in Greece asserted that they were the birthplace of Homer, the national poet, so a

number of cities disputed for the honor of being the birthplace of Rashi, or of having been his residence, or

the scene of his death. Worms claimed him as one of its rabbis, Lunel, thanks to a confusion of names, has

passed as his birthplace, and Prague as the city of his death. One historian set 1105 as the year of his birth,

though in fact it is the year of his death. Others placed it in the thirteenth century, and still others even in the

In the course of this narrative other such instances will occur of fables, more or less ingenious, collected by

chroniclers lacking discrimination. They may make pleasant reading, although they contain no element of

authenticity. Besides, they are of relatively recent date, and emanate to a large extent from Italy and Spain,

whose historians could count upon the credulity of their readers to impose their inventions upon Jews and

Confusion of this sort reigned in regard to Rashi's life until 1823, the year in which the illustrious Zunz

published the essay which established, not only his own, but also Rashi's reputation, and brought Rashi forth

from the shadow of legend into the full light of history. We owe a debt of gratitude to Zunz and other

scholars, such as Geiger, Weiss, Berliner, and Epstein, because, with the legendary often superimposed upon

the true, they have made it easy to pick out the genuine from the false. Now that the result of their labors is

before us, no great difficulty attaches to the task of casting off legend from history, and extracting from the

In brushing aside all the myths with which the biography of Rashi is cobwebbed, one finds, not a varied life,

rich in incident, but an entirely intellectual life, whose serenity was undisturbed by excitement.

An event dividing Rashi's life into almost equal parts is his taking up his residence at Troyes. During the

earlier period he received his education, at first in the city of his birth, then in the academies of Lorraine. On

his return to Troyes, he had matured and was thoroughly equipped. In the school he founded there, he

grouped pupils about him and wrote the works destined to perpetuate his influence.

First of all, it is necessary to make Rashi's acquaintance, as it were, to know the names he bore and those he

did not bear. An example of the fantastic stories of which he was the hero is afforded by the name Yarhi,

which is sometimes still given to him. It does not date further back than the sixteenth century, before which

time he was called R. Solomon (Shelomo) by the Jews of France, and R. Salomon haZarfati (the

Frenchman) by Jews outside of France. Christian scholars likewise called him R. Salomo Gallicus, and also

briefly R. Solomon, as the most celebrated rabbi who ever bore that name. So said Abbe Bartolocci, one of

the first and most eminent bibliographers of rabbinical literature, explaining that the short appellation had the

The usual name applied to Rashi (R Sh I) is formed, in accordance with a wellknown Jewish custom, from

the initials of his name and patronymic in Hebrew, Rabbi Shelomo Izhaki[9], which the Christians translated

by Solomon Isaacides, just as they made Maimonides of Moses ben Maimon. Raymond Martini, the

celebrated author of the Pugio fidei, seems to have been the first who saw in Rashi the initials of the words,

R. Solomon Yarhi. He confused Rashi either with a Solomon of Lunel, mentioned by the traveller [traveler

sic] Benjamin of Tudela, or with a grammarian, Solomon ben Abba Mari, of Lunel, who lived in the second

half of the fourteenth century. Sebastian Munster, the German Hebraist (14891552), and the elder Buxtorf

(15641629), the humanist and highly esteemed Hebrew scholar, popularized the mistake, which soon gave

rise to another. L'Empereur, also a scholar in Hebraica, of the seventeenth century, went even further than his

predecessors, in holding Lunel [10] to have been the birthplace of Rashi, while Basnage (16531725), the

Though as early a writer as Richard Simon (16381712) protested against the error of making Lunel the

native city of Rashi, the mistake crept even into Jewish circles. Since this city of Languedoc was one of the

principal centres [centers sic] of Jewish learning in the Provence during the middle ages, Rashi, in most

unexpected fashion, came to swell the number of "scholars" of Lunel, of whom mention is frequently made in

rabbinical literature. It even seems that at the beginning of the nineteenth century, Jews of Bordeaux went to

In point of fact Rashi was neither a German nor a Provencal; he was born and he died in Champagne, at

Troyes. At that time France was divided into a dozen distinct countries, one of the most important of which

was the countship of Champagne, to the northeast, between the IledeFrance and Lorraine. There were Jews

in all the important localities of the province, especially in the commercial cities. In the period with which we

are dealing, fairs took place every year successively at Lagny, Bar surAube, Provins, Troyes, and again

Provins and Troyes. The principal city was Troyes, which at the end of the ninth century, when it contained

about twelve thousand inhabitants, was chosen as their capital by the counts of Champagne.

In a wide plain, where the Seine divides into several branches, rises the city of Troyes, maintaining to some

extent its medieval character, with its narrow, illpaved streets, which of old swarmed with geese and porkers,

and with its houses of wooden gables and overhanging roofs. Manufactures prospered at Troyes. Many

tanneries were established there, and parchment was exported from all parts of the district. In fact it has been

suggested that the development of the parchment industry at Troyes furthered the literary activity for which

the province was noted, by providing writing material at a time when in general it was so rare. But

manufactures in that period had not attained a high degree of perfection, and the main instrument for

obtaining wealth was commerce, chiefly the commerce carried on at fairs, those great lists periodically

opened to the commercial activity of a whole province or a whole country. Troyes, celebrated for its fairs,

was the scene of two a year, one beginning on St. John's Day (the warm fair), and one beginning on St.

Remy's Day (the cold fair). They covered a quarter so important that it constituted two large parishes by

Although religon [religion sic] had already begun to intervene in the regulation of the fairs, Jews took a large

part in them, and somewhat later, like the Jews of Poland in the seventeenth century, they used them as the

occasions for rabbinical synods. In the Jewish sources, the fairs of Troyes are frequently mentioned. The

relations that sprang up among the great numbers of Jews that went to them were favorable to the cause of

science, since the Jews in pursuing their material interests did not forget those of learning. Thus the fairs

Troyes was also the seat of a permanent Jewish community of some importance; for a Responsum of the first

half of the eleventh century declared that the regulations of the community should have the force of law for

each member, and when the regulations deal with questions of general import they were to hold good for

neighboring communities as well. Another Responsum dating from the same period shows that the Jews of

France owned land and cultivated the vine. Troyes no longer bears visible traces of the ancient habitation of

the Jews. It is possible that the parish of St. Frobert occupies the ground covered by the old Jewry; and

probably the church of St. Frobert, now in ruins, and the church of St. Pantaleon were originally synagogues.

But in Rashi's works there are more striking evidences that Jews were identified with Troyes. Certain of his

expressions or other indications attach them to the city of Troyes, "our city," as he says.

Rashi, then, was born at Troyes in 1040the year of Gershom's death, some authors affirm, who are more

concerned with the pragmatism of history than its truth, more with scientific continuity than with the

sequence of events. But if it is almost certain that the rabbi, who, as I said, was the precursor of Rashi, had

been dead for twelve years, 1040 (possibly 1038) is probably the year of the death of another authority, no

less celebrated, Hai Gaon, whose passing away marks the irreparable decadence of the Babylonian Gaonate.

The French rabbi and his Spanish colleagues were destined to harvest the fruits of this Gaonate and carry on

its work, exemplifying the words of the Talmud: "When one star is extinguished in Israel, another star rises

In order that Rashi should have a setting in accord with so high a position, legend has surrounded his family

with a nimbus of glory. History, it is true, does not make mention of his ancestors, and this silence, joined to

the popularity which Rashi came to enjoy, inspired, or was an added stimulus to, the fantastic genealogic

theories of those who in their admiration of him, or through pride of family, declared him to have been

descended from a rabbi of the third century, Johanan ha Sandlar.[11] All that can be said with certainty is,

that his maternal uncle was Simon the Elder, a disciple of Gershom and a learned and respected rabbi. Rashi's

father Isaac appears to have been welleducated. Rashi on one occasion mentions a certain bit of instruction

he had received from him. Tradition, fond of ascribing illustrious ancestors to its heroes, would see in this

Isaac one who through his knowledge and godliness deserved to share in the renown of his son, and to whom

his son, moreover, rendered pious homage by quoting him in the opening passage[12] of the commentary on

Genesis. We would willingly believe Rashi capable of a delicate attention of this kind, only we know that the

Tradition, letting its fancy play upon the lives of great men, delights also in clothing their birth with tales of

marvels. Sometimes the miraculous occurs even before they are born and points to their future greatness. The

father of Rashi, for instance, is said to have possessed a precious gem of great value. Some Christians wanted

to take it away from him, either because they desired to put it to a religious use, or because they could not

bear the sight of such a treasure in the hands of a Jew. Isaac obstinately refused their offers. One day the

Christians lured him into a boat, and demanded that he give up his gem. Isaac, taking a heroic stand, threw

the object of their ardent desires into the water. Then a mysterious voice was heard in his school pronouncing

these words: "A son will be born to thee, 0 Isaac, who will enlighten the eyes of all Israel." According to a

less familiar tradition, Isaac lived in a seaport town, where he earned a poor livelihood as stevedore. Once he

found a pearl in the harbor, and went in all haste to show it to his wife, the daughter of a jeweler. Realizing

the value of the pearl, she could not contain herself, and went forthwith to a jeweler. He offered her ten

thousand ducats, double its value, because the duke was anxious to buy it as an adornment for the bishop's

cope. The woman would not listen to the proposition, and ran back to her husband to tell him to what use the

pearl was going to be put. Rather than have it adorn a bishop's vestment, Isaac threw it into the sea,

The scene of another tradition is laid at Worms. One day his wife, who had become pregnant, was walking

along a street of the city when two carriages coming from opposite directions collided. The woman in danger

of being crushed pressed up close against a wall, and the wall miraculously sank inward to make way for her.

This made Isaac fear an accusation of witchcraft, and he left Worms for Troyes, where a son was born to him,

To turn from the mythical to the hypotheticalthe young Solomon probably received his early education in

his own family, and what this education was, can easily be conceived. It was the duty of the father himself to

take charge of the elementary instruction of his son and turn the first glimmerings of the child's reason upon

the principles of religion. This instruction was concentrated upon the observance of laws and customs. "From

the tenderest age," says Dr. M. Berliner, "the child was initiated into the observance of religious precepts, and

was put upon his guard against their transgression. His parents had but one aim, to inculcate in him the

religion of his ancestors and render the Law, the source of this religion, accessible to him. He was thus inured

to the struggle of life, in which his shield was belief in God. The mother also took part in the rearing of her

child. Her lullabies were often prayers or Biblical hymns, and although the women, as a rule, did not receive

a thorough education, they effectually helped to make observant devotees of the Law of their children."[13]

Five or six was the age at which Hebrew was begun to be taught to the child, and the occasion was usually

celebrated by a picturesque ceremony full of poetic feeling. On the morning of the Pentecost, the festival

which commemorates the giving of the Law on Mt. Sinai, or on the morning of the Rejoicing of the Law, the

day devoted above all others to honoring the Law, the child, dressed in his holiday clothes and wrapped in a

Tallit, was led to the synagogue by his father or by a scholar who acted as sponsor. In the synagogue the child

listened to the reading of the Law; then he was led to the house of the teacher to whom his education was to

be entrusted. The teacher took him in his arms, "as a nursingfather carrieth the sucking child," and presented

him with a tablet, on which were written the Hebrew alphabet and some verses from the Bible applicable to

the occasion. The tablet was then spread with honey, which the child ate as if to taste the sweetness of the

Law of God. The child was also shown a bun made by a young maiden, out of flour kneaded together with

milk and with oil or honey, and bearing among other inscriptions the words of Ezekiel: "Son of man, cause

thy belly to eat, and fill thy bowels with this roll that I give thee. Then did I eat it; and it was in my mouth as

honey for sweetness." Other Biblical passages were inscribed on the shell of an egg, and after they were read,

the bun and the egg as well as apples and other fruit were eaten by the pupils present.

This ceremony, marred only by the introduction of superstitious practices, such as the conjuring up of evil

demons, was well adapted to stamp itself on the child's mind, and its naive symbolism was bound to make a

profound impression upon his imagination. Pagan antiquity knew of nothing so delicate and at the same time

so elevated in sentiment. Pindar, and Horace after him, conceived the fancy that the bees of Hymettus

alighted on the child's brow and dropped rich honey upon it. The Jewish celebration of a new period in

childhood, though not a poetic fiction, is none the less charming and picturesque. It shows how precious was

the cultivation of the mind to a people whom the world delights to represent as absorbed by material interests

and consumed by the desire for wealth. Education has always been highly valued among the Jews, who long

acted up to the saying of Lessing: "The schoolmaster holds the future in his hands." The religious law is a

system of instruction, the synagogue is a school. It will redound to the eternal honor of Judaism that it raised

the dissemination of knowledge to the height of a religious precept. At a time when among the Christians

knowledge was the special privilege of the clergy, learning was open to every Jew, and, what is still finer, the

pursuit of it was imposed upon him as a strict obligation. The recalcitrant, say the legalists, is compelled to

employ a tutor for his child. Every scholar in Israel is obliged to gather children about him; and the rabbinical

works contain most detailed recommendations concerning the organization of schools and methods of

instruction. One comes upon principles and rules of pedagogy unusually advanced for their time. For

instance, teachers were forbidden to have more than forty pupils, and were not to use a more severe means of

punishment than whipping with a small strap. In Christian schools, on the contrary, pedagogic methods were

backward and barbarous. It was considered an excellent plan to beat all pupils with the ferule [ferrule sic], in

order to make knowledge enter the heads of the bad and to keep the good from the sin of pride.

Among the Jews instruction was tempered to suit the faculty of the learner. First the child was taught to read

Hebrew, translate the daily prayers, and recite the more important of them by heart. Then the Pentateuch

beginning with Leviticus was explained to him, and, if necessary, it was translated into French. It was read

with a special chant. Rashi, be it said parenthetically, by his commentary gave this Bible instruction a more

solid basis. Not until the pupil was a little older did he study the Talmud, which is so well qualified to

develop intelligence and clearheadedness. His elementary education completed, and provided he had shown

taste and inclination for the more difficult studies, the young man went to special schools. But if he had not

shown signs of progress, he was taught simply to read Hebrew and understand the Bible.

The author of a curious pedagogic regulation in the middle ages fixes the whole term of study at fourteen

years: the seven years preceding the religious majority of the child are spent in the local school, at the study

of the Pentateuch (two years), at the study of the rest of the Bible (two years), and at the study of the easier

Talmudic treatises (three years). The remaining seven years are devoted to the higher study of the Talmud in

an academy outside the birthplace of the youth. This education was obtained sometimes from private

teachers, and sometimes in schools founded and maintained at the expense of the community or even of

A sufficiently clear idea may thus be obtained of Rashi's early education; and in assuming that he soon

distinguished himself for precocity and for maturity of thought, we shall not be shooting wide of the mark.

But legend will not let its heroes off so cheaply; legend will have it that Rashi, in order to complete his

education, travelled [traveled sic] to the most distant lands. Not satisfied with having him go to the south of

France, to Narbonne, to the school of Moses haDarshan (who had doubtless died before Rashi's coming to

his school was a possibility), or to Lunel, to attend the school of Zerahiah haLevi (not yet born), tradition

maintains that at the age of thirtythree Rashi made the tour of almost the whole world as then known, in

order to atone for a mistake made by his father, who regretted having lost a precious object, and also in order

to assure himself that his commentaries had not been surpassed. He is said to have traversed Italy, Greece,

So long a voyage must, of course, have been marked by a number of events. In Egypt, Rashi became the

disciplethe more exigent say, the intimate friendof Maimonides, who, as we all know, was born in 1135,

nearly a century later than Rashi. Maimonides, as fiction recounts, conceived a great affection for Rashi, and

imparted to him all his own learning. Not to fall behind Maimonides in courtesy, Rashi showed him his

commentaries, and Maimonides at the end of his life declared that he would have written more commentaries,

While in the Orient Rashi is represented as having met a monk, and the two discussed the superiority of their

respective religions. At the inn the monk suddenly fell sick. Rashi, caring for him as for a brother, succeeded

in curing him by means of a miraculous remedy. The monk wanted to thank him, but Rashi interrupted,

saying: "Thou owest me nothing in return. Divided as we are by our religions, we are united by charity,

which my religion imposes upon me as a duty. If thou comest upon a Jew in misfortune, aid him as I have

aided thee." Fictitious though the story be, it is not unworthy the noble character of Rashi. He was noble,

On his return Rashi is said to have passed through Prague, whither his reputation had preceded him. On his

entrance into the synagogue, the declamations of the faithful proved to him the admiration they felt for the

young rabbi of only thirtysix years. The pleasure manifested by the Jews irritated Duke Vratislav, who had

the famous rabbi arrested, brought before him, and questioned in the presence of his counsellor [counselor

sic], the Bishop of Olmutz. The bishop raising his eyes recognized in the prisoner the Jew who had saved his

life, and he told the story to the duke. The order was immediately given to set Rashi free; but the people,

thinking the Jews lost, had fallen upon the Jewish quarter. Rashi threw himself at the feet of the sovereign,

and begged protection for his brethren. Provided with a safeconduct, Rashi went forth to appease the mob.

The Jews in their great joy saluted him as their savior. Tradition adds that the duke conceived great

Another, even sweeter reward, awaited him. Rebecca, the daughter of his host, fell in love with him, and, as

But all this is on the face of it romance. Certain passages in Rashi's works give abundant proof that Rashi

never visited either Palestine or Babylonia, and his conception of the geography of the two countries is utterly

fantastic. For instance, he believed that the Euphrates flowed from the one land into the other. Moreover, he

himself admitted that his ideas concerning them were gathered only from the Bible and the Talmud.[14]

Though Rashi did not let his curiosity carry him to all parts of the globe, he did not confine himself to his

birthplace. He went first to Worms and then to Mayence, remaining some length of time in both places. He

was moved to the step, not by taste for travel, but by taste for study, in accordance with the custom of his

time, by which a student went from school to school in order to complete his knowledge. Of old, it was

customary for the workman to make the tour of France for the purpose of perfecting himself in his trade and

finding out the different processes of manufacture. Similarly, the student went from city to city, or, remaining

in the same place, from school to school, in order to study a different subject under each master according to

the manuscripts which the particular master happened to possess, and which he made his pupils copy. So far

from being disqualified from entering a school on account of vagabondage, the stranger student was accorded

a warm welcome, especially if he was himself a scholar. Strangers found open hospitality in the community,

and were sometimes taken in by the master himself. Knowledge and love of knowledge were safeconducts.

Rashi probably stood in need of such hospitality and protection, for, if an obscure remark made by him may

be relied upon, his life as a student was not free from care, and he must have suffered all sorts of privations.

Nor was it rare that fortune failed to smile upon the students, andnot to give a list of examplescases of

poverty were fairly frequent in the Christian universities, at which mendicancy itself was almost respectable.

The temptation might be legitimate to sentimentalize over this love of knowledge, this zeal for work, as they

manifested themselves in Rashi, causing him to brave all the evil strokes of fortune for their sake; but one

must strain a point to take him literally when he says, as he does in a certain somewhat involved passage, that

he studied "without nourishment and without garments." However that may be, the same passage shows that

while still a student whose course was but half completed, he married, in conformity with the Talmudic

maxim, which recommends the Jew to marry at eighteen years of age. From time to time he went to visit his

The fact that the academies of Lorraine which Rashi frequented were in his day the great centres of Talmudic

learning, is due to the happy lot which the Jews enjoyed in that country. The chief trading route of Europe at

that time connected Italy with Rhenish Germany, and the Jews knew how to render themselves indispensable

in the traffic along this route. Moreover, they lived on good terms with their neighbors. The explanation of

the cordial relations between Jews and Christians lies in the ease with which the Jews rose to the level of

general culture. The architecture of their synagogues is a striking example. The cathedral of Worms was built

in 1034, at the same period as the synagogue there. The two structures display so many similarities that one is

tempted to believe they represent the handiwork of the same builders. At all events, it is clear that the Jews

Lorraine was not at that time a province of the German Empire; and Rashi leaving the banks of the Seine for

those of the Rhine did not expatriate himself in the true sense of the word. Lorraine, or, as it was then called,

Lotharingia, the country of Lothair (this is the name that occurs in the rabbinical sources), was more than half

French. Situated between France and Germany, it came within the sphere of French influence. French was the

language in current use, spoken by Jew and Christian alike. German words, in fact, were gallicized in

pronunciation. In Rashi's day the barons of Lorraine rendered homage to the king of France, Henry I.

Naturally, then, the Jews of Lorraine and those of Northern France were in close intellectual communion. The

academies along the Rhine and the Moselle formed, as it were, the link between France and Germany. In

general, and despite the rarity and difficulty of communication, the Jews of France, Germany, and Italy

No testimony exists to prove that Rashi, as has been said, studied at Speyer, at which, without doubt, R.

Eliakim had not yet begun to teach. Possibly, Rashi did go to Germany, if confidence is to be placed in some

information he gives concerning "the country of Ashkenaz," and if the fact may be deduced from the

occurrence in his commentaries of some dozen German words, the authenticity of which is not always

Though doubt may attach to Rashi's journeys, it is certain that Rashi passed the larger number of his years of

study (about 1055 1065) in Worms. For a long time it was thoughtand the belief still obtainsthat he also

gave instruction in Worms; and recently a street in the city was named after him. Tradition has connected

many things with this alleged stay of Rashi as rabbi at Worms. Even in our days visitors are shown the school

and the little synagogue attached to it as recalling his sojourn in the place, and a small building touching the

eastern wall of the great synagogue is also supposed to perpetuate his memory, and it is still called the "Rashi

Chapel." At the bottom of the wall a recess is visible, miraculously caused in order to save his mother when

her life was endangered by the two carriages.[17] Some say that Rashi taught from this niche, and a seat in it,

These traditions do not merit credence. Moreover, they are of comparatively recent origin. For a long time the

school bore the name, not of Rashi, but of Eleazar of Worms, and it was not built until the beginning of the

thirteenth century. Destroyed in 1615, it was restored in 1720 through the generosity of Loeb Sinzheim, of

Vienna, and at present it is the Jewish hospital. Alongside the school was a little chapel, belonging to it,

which was destroyed in 1615, restored several years later, and finally burned by the French in 1689. The

other chapel, the socalled "Rashi Chapel," his Yeshibah (school), is so tiny that it could hardly have held the

crowd of hearers who thronged there, as tradition has it, in order to listen to him. Besides, the building did not

bear the name of Rashi when in 1623 David Joshua Oppenheim, head of the community, erected the school

and adjoining chapel, as a Hebrew inscription in the southern wall of the chapel declares. The chapel having

lost its utility was closed in 1760, and from this time on it has been consecrated to the memory of Rashi. It

At Worms Rashi first studied under the head of the Talmudic academy there, Jacob ben Yakar, by that time a

man well on in years. His age doubtless explains the respect and veneration paid him, to which his disciple

gave touching expression. But we know besides how sincere was his piety, his humility, and his spirit of

selfdenial. One day a Christian delivered several tuns [tons sic] of wine to a Jew of Worms under peculiar

conditions. Jacob did not want to decide so complicated and delicate a question, and he fled. Rashi and

another disciple pursued and overtook him. Then he authorized the use of the wine.

Once when the community was going to pay its respects to the emperor or the governor, Jacob declined the

honor of heading the procession. "I am nothing but a poor man," he said. "Let others bring their money, I can

offer only my prayers. Each should give of that which he has." Other characteristics of his are mentioned.

Once he and his colleague, Eliezer, surnamed the Great, took an animal they had bought to the slaughter

house. There it was found that there was an imperfection in its body; according to Eliezer the imperfection

rendered it unfit for eating; according to Jacob it was of no importance. The animal having been divided,

Eliezer threw his share away. Then Jacob did the same, saying that he would not eat the meat of an animal

when another denied himself the enjoyment of it. Later it is told of Jacob that in his humility he swept the

floor of the synagogue with his beard. To cite Rashi himself, "I never protest against the usages in the school

of my master, Jacob ben Yakar: I know that he possessed the finest qualities. He considered himself a worm

which is trodden underfoot, and he never arrogated to himself the honorthough he would have been justified

It seems that Rashi, who spoke of Jacob ben Yakar with the utmost respect, and called him "my old master,"

The scholar who desired to obtain a grasp on all the studies, if not in their full content, at least in all their

variety, had to devote many years to study at a school, not necessarily the same school, throughout his

student years, for since the celebrity of a school depended upon the knowledge and renown of its head, it

Thus, on the death of Jacob ben Yakar, Rashi studied under the guidance of his successor, Isaac ben Eleazar

haLevi,[18] though not for long, it seems. Wishing in a way to complete the cycle of instruction, he went to

Mayence, the centre [center sic] of great Talmudic activity. The school here was directed by Isaac ben Judah

(about 10501080), sometimes called the "Frenchman." Rashi considered Isaac ben Judah his master par

excellence. In this school were composed the Talmudic commentaries generally attributed to R. Gershom and

sometimes cited under the title of "Commentaries of the Scholars of Mayence." Isaac ben Judah not to be

confounded with Isaac ha Levi, both having been the disciples of Eliezer the Greatwas scrupulously pious,

Rashi, it thus becomes apparent, was not content to learn from only one master, he attended various schools,

as if he had had a prevision of his future task, to sum up and, as it were, concentrate all Talmudic teachings

and gather the fruits of the scientific activities of all these academies. Similarly, Judah the Saint, before he

became the redactor of the Mishnah, placed himself under a number of learned men, "as if," says Graetz, "he

had had a presentiment that one day he would collect the most diverse opinions and put an end to the juridical

Rashi's intellectual status during these years of study must not be misunderstood. Pupil he doubtless was, but

such a one as in course of time entered into discussions with his teachers, and to whom questions were

submitted for decision. It may even be that toward the end of his school period, he commenced to compose

At Worms as at Mayence, his fellowstudents probably counted among their number those young scholars

who remained his friends and correspondents. Such were Azriel ben Nathan, his kinsman Eliakim haLevi

ben Meshullam, of Speyer (born about 1030), Solomon ben Simson, Nathan ben Machir and his brothers

Menahem and Yakar, Meir haCohen and his son Abraham, Samuel haLevi and, chief of all, his brother

David, Nathan ben Jehiel and his brothers Daniel and Abraham, Joseph ben Judah Ezra, Durbal, and Meir ben

Isaac ben Samuel[19] (about 1060), acting rabbi and liturgical poet, mentioned by Rashi in terms of praise

and several times cited by him as an authority. Meir of Rameru, later the soninlaw of Rashi, also studied at

the academies of Lorraine, though probably not at the same time as Rashi, but a short while after.

As is natural, it was of his teachers that Rashi preserved the most faithful recollections, and he refers to them

as authoritative even after he had surpassed them in knowledge and reputation. He does not always mention

their names in repeating their opinions. If it were possible to make a distinction and decide the authorship of

each sentence, it would be found that we are not far from the truth in asserting that the greater part of the

But in literature, as elsewhere, honor does not redound to the workmen who have gotten the material

together, but to the architect, wise and skilful [skillful sic], who conceives and carries out the plan for the

entire edifice, and, with the stones others have brought, constructs a monument of vast proportions.

The youth Rashi has now completed his apprenticeship; in his studies and travels he has amassed a vast store

of information, which he will use for the profit of his contemporaries and of posterity; and he now believes

himself in possession of sufficient knowledge and experience to strike out for himself. Moreover, he must

now provide for his familywe have seen that he married while still a student. But he does not give up his

His change of abode was the only change in his life, a life of remarkable unity, the life of a student. Rashi

gave himself up entirely to study, to study without cessation, and to teaching; but teaching is only a form of

Detailed and comprehensive though the Talmudic studies were, nevertheless the student, especially if he was

gifted, completed the course when he was not much more than twenty years of age. Rashi, then, was probably

close to twentyfive years old when he returned from Mayence. This return marks an epoch in the history of

rabbinical literature. From that time, the study of the Talmud was cultivated not alone upon the banks of the

Rhine, but also in Champagne, which came to rival and soon supplant Lorraine, and having freed itself from

the subjection of the Rhenish schools, radiated the light of science. Jews from all over Christian Europe

gathered there to bask in the warmth of the new home of Jewish learning. Less than ten centuries earlier, the

same thing had happened when Rab transplanted the teaching of the Law from Palestine to Babylonia, and

founded an academy at Sura, which, for a while rivalling [rivaling sic] the Palestinian schools, soon eclipsed

them, and finally became the principal centre [center sic] of Jewish science. The Kabbalist was not so very

far from the truth when he believed that the soul of Rab had passed into the body of Rashi.

It is noteworthy that this upgrowth of Talmudic schools in Champagne coincides with the literary movement

then beginning in Christian France. In emerging from the barbarous state of the early middle ages, it seems

that the same breath of life quickened the two worlds. The city of Troyes played an especially important role

in matters intellectual and religious. A number of large councils were held there, and the ecclesiastical school

of Troyes enjoyed a brilliant reputation, having trained scholars such as Olbert, Pierre Comestor, Pierre de

Celle, and William of the White Hands. And it was near Troyes that the mighty voices of Abelard and Saint

There is a curious reminder of Rashi's sojourn at Troyes. As late as 1840 an ancient butcher shop was still

standing, into which, it was remarked, flies never entered. Jewish tradition has it that the shop was built on

the spot previously occupied by Rashi's dwellinghence its miraculous immunity. The same legend is found

among the Christians, but they ascribe the freedom from flies to the protection of Saint Loup, the patron saint

of the city, who himself worked the miracle. Rashi is linked with Troyes in ways more natural as well. As I

have said, certain expressions occur in his works which he himself says refer to his city. Some scholars have

even stated that they recognized in the language he used the dialect of Troyes, a variety of the speech of

It is probable that Rashiwho was never at the head of the Talmudic schools of Worms or Prague, as the

legends goexercised the functions of a rabbi at Troyes, that he never kept himself exclusively within the

confines of his school, 'and that he felt it his duty to instruct all his fellowJews. In conjunction with his

intellectual endowments, he possessed faith and charity, the true sources of strength in religious leadership.

He was the natural champion of the weak,[21] the judge and supervisor of all acts. He pronounced judgment

in cases more or less distantly connected with religion, that is, in nearly all cases at a period so thoroughly

religious in character. Either because he had been appointed their rabbi by the faithful, or because he enjoyed

great prestige, Rashi was the veritable spiritual chief of the community, and even exercised influence upon

the surrounding communities. The man to preside over the religious affairs of the Jews was chosen not so

much for his birth and breeding as for his scholarship and piety, since the rabbi was expected to distinguish

himself both in learning and in character. "He who is learned, gentle, and modest," says the Talmud, "and

who is beloved of men, he should be judge in his city." As will soon be made clear, Rashi fulfilled this ideal.

His piety and amiability, in as great a degree as his learning, won for him the admiration of his

contemporaries and of posterity. At Troyes there was no room for another at the head of the community.

Like most of the rabbis of the time, Rashi accepted no compensation from the community for his services,

and he probably lived from what he earned by viticulture. Once he begs a correspondent to excuse the

shortness of his letter, because he and his family were busy with the vintage. "All the Jews," he said, "are at

this moment engaged in the vineyards." In a letter to his soninlaw Meir, he gives a description of the

wine presses of Troyes, in the installation of which a change had been made. It was deemed fitting that the

scholar should provide for the needs of his family; the law in fact imposed it upon him as a duty. "Religious

study not accompanied by work of the hands is barren and leads to sin." The functions of a rabbi were purely

honorific in character, dignifying, and unrelated in kind to' mercantile goods, for which one receives pay. It

was forbidden to make the law a means of earning one's living or a title to glory. "He who profits by his

When the religious representative showed such devotion and disinterestedness, the pious willingly submitted

themselves to his authority. The spiritual heads of the communities had as great ascendency [ascendancy sic]

over believing Jews as a king had over his subjects; they were sovereigns in the realm of the spirit. And Rashi

in his time, because of his learning and piety, exercised the most undisputed authority. His influence though

not so great was comparable, in the sphere in which it could be exercised, with that of the great Saint Bernard

upon the entire Christian world, or with that of Maimonides upon Judaism in the Arabic countries.

People in all circumstances and from all the surrounding countries addressed themselves to him; and to the

list of his correspondents in Lorraine may be added the names of several French rabbis, the "wise men" of

Auxerre, the scholar Solomon of Tours, whom Rashi calls his dear friend, his kinsman Eleazar, and R. Aaron

the Elder. His correspondence on learned questions was so large that sometimes, as when he was ill, for

About 1070 Rashi founded a school at Troyes, which soon became the centre [center sic] of instruction in the

Talmud for the whole region. As we have seen, Gershom trained a number of disciples who directed schools,

each of which pursued a particular course. Rashi united these various tendencies, as, later, his work put an

end to the activity of the commentators of the Talmud. An explanation is thus afforded of the legend repeated

by Basnage in these words: "He made a collection of the difficulties he had heard decided during his travels.

On his return to Europe he went to all the academies and disputed with the professors about the questions

which they were discussing; then he threw to the floor a page of his collections, which gave a solution of the

problem, and so ended the controversy, without, however, mentioning the name of the author of the decision.

It is alleged that these leaves scattered in thousands of places were gathered together, and that from them was

composed the commentary on the Talmud." The legend attests Rashi's great reputation. While he was still

When in Lorraine, he had from time to time paid a visit to Troyes, and so, later, when definitely established

in Champagne, he maintained relations with his masters, especially with Isaac haLevi, whom he visited and

with whom he corresponded in the interim of his visits. Isaac haLevi was no less fond of his favorite pupil,

and he inquired of travellers [travelers sic] about him. He addressed Responsa to Rashi on questions of

Talmudic jurisprudence. In fact, Rashi continued to solicit advice from his teachers and keep himself

informed of everything concerning schools and Talmudic instruction. In this way he once learned that a

Talmudic scholar of Rome, R. Kalonymos (ben Sabbatai, born before 1030) had come after the death of

Jacob ben Yakar to establish himself at Worms, where he died, probably a martyr's death, during the First

Crusade. Kalonymos, who enjoyed a great reputation, wrote Talmudic commentaries and liturgical poems.

Rashi's masters, in turn, often applied to their pupil for advice, choosing him as arbiter and consulting him

with a deference more fitting toward a colleague than a disciple. Isaac haLevi wrote the following words, in

which one detects real esteem and admiration underlying epistolary emphasis and the usual exaggeration of a

compliment: "Blessed be the Lord who willed that this century should not be orphaned, who has steadied our

tottering generation by eminent teachers, such as my dear and respected friend, my kinsman R. Solomon.

May Israel boast many another such as he!" Equally sincere seems the salutation of a letter written to Rashi

by Isaac ben Judali: "To him who is beloved in heaven and honored on earth, who possesses the treasures of

the Law, who knows how to resolve the most subtle and profound questions, whose knowledge moves

After the death of Rashi's teachers (about 1075) his school 'assumed even more importance. It eclipsed the

academies of Lorraine, and from all the neighboring countries it attracted pupils, who later went forth and

spread the teachings of their master abroad. Rashi came to be considered almost the regenerator of Talmudic

studies, and in the following generation Eliezer ben Xathan said with pious admiration: "His lips were the

seat of wisdom, and thanks to him the Law, which he examined and interpreted, has come to life again."

In this school, justly renowned as the centre [center sic] of Jewish science, master and pupil were animated

by equal love for their work. Entire days were spent there in study, and often, especially in winter, entire

nights as well. The studies were regulated by a judicious method. The teacher began to explain a treatise of

the Talmud on the first of the month, in order that the students might take their measures accordingly, and not

delay coming until after the treatise had been begun. The pupils took notes dictated by the teacher, and thus

composed manuscripts which are still of great value. In so doing they fixed all the minutiae of a detailed

process of argumentation. On the other hand, books were rare, and students poor. The master himself, in

order to facilitate his task, wrote explanations during the lesson, and these served as textbooks, which, like

Rashi not only imparted knowledge to his pupils, but received knowledge from them in turn. He set great

store by their observations. His grandson Samuel ben Meir once drew his attention to a certain form of

Biblical parallelism, in which the second hemistich completes the first, as in the following verse from Psalm

After this, each time Rashi came across a similarly constructed verse, he would say with mock gravity:

The Jewish student led a pure, regulated existence, with only wholesome distractions, such as the little

celebrations when the study of a Talmudic treatise had been completed. His greatest pleasure he found in the

Rashi did not content himself with giving instruction only to students under his immediate influence. He

desired that his teachings should not be lost to men unknown to him and to unborn generations. He realized

that everything so far accomplished in the field of Talmudic and even Biblical exegesis was inadequate, and

he therefore undertook the works that were to occupy him the rest of his life. His school was, so to speak, the

laboratory of which his Biblical and Talmudic commentaries were the products. They involved a vast amount

of toil, and though death overtook him before his task was accomplished, he doubtless began the work early

in life.[23] A legend goes that he was forbidden to write commentaries on the Bible before he was a hundred

years old. Rashi with all his ardor for learning could not curb himself and postpone his activity for so long a

time, and he turned the prohibition in his own favor by explaining that the sum of the Hebrew letters forming

Rashi's disciples were in very truth his sons, for no sons were born to the illustrious rabbi. But he had three

daughters, who each married a Talmudist, so that Rashi's descendants, no less than himself, were the bearers

of rabbinic learning in France. Rashi did not limit his association with his pupils to the schoolhouse, but

invited them to enter his family circle. Indeed, this was the highest honor to which they could aspire. It has

always been the greatest piece of good fortune for a Jew to marry the daughter of a learned and pious man,

and the suitors most desired by and for young girls were scholars. In this way arose veritable dynasties of

rabbis, who cherished learning as a heritage, a family treasure, and the Rashi "dynasty" was one of the

Tradition has delighted in representing Rashi's daughters as highly endowed. Unfortunately, it seems that the

education of women among the Jews of the middle ages was greatly neglected, though they were taught the

principles of religion and the ordinances which it was their special duty to fulfil [fulfill sic]. They possessed

the domestic virtues, and above all modesty and charity. They helped their husbands in business, thus

enabling them to devote themselves more freely to study, and though the women themselves lacked learning,

they concerned themselves with the learning of their menfolk, and were eager to contribute to the support of

schools and pupils. They were extremely pious, often scrupulously so. The women in a family of scholars had

sufficient knowledge to be called upon in ritual questions, as, for instance, Bellette, sister of Isaac ben

Menahem the Great, of Orleans, a contemporary of Rashi, who appealed to her authority. Other cases of the

same kind are mentioned, some occurring in Rashi's own family, his granddaughter Miriam having been

asked to adjudicate a doubtful case. One of Rashi's daughters, also called Miriam, married the scholar Judah

ben Nathan. Rachel, another daughter, given a French epithet, Bellassez,[24] also seems to have been learned.

Her union with a certain Eliezer, or Jocelyn, was unhappy. Not so the marriage of the third daughter of Rashi,

Jochebed, whose husband was the scholar Meir, son of Samuel, of Rameru, a little village near Troyes. She

had four sons, named Samuel, Jacob, Isaac, and Solomon. The three first, and in a less degree the fourth, too,

continued in glorious wise the traditions of their grandfather. I shall have occasion again to mention them,

The renown of his posterity, far from dimming Rashi's brilliance, only added fresh lustre [luster sic] to the

name of him who was both father and revered master. Even in his lifetime Rashi could reap the harvest of

his efforts, and though death intervened before his work was completed, he saw at his side collaborators

A marriage among the Jews of France of that epoch must have been a charming and touching ceremony, to

judge from a picturesque description, given by an author of the fourteenth century, of a wedding at Mayence,

Several days before the ceremony the beadle invited all the faithful; for it was a public festival, and

everybody was supposed to share in the joy of the bride and bridegroom. On the day of the wedding, the

bridegroom, attended by the rabbi and men of standing in the community and followed by other members of

the congregation, proceeded to the synagogue to the accompaniment of music. At the synagogue he was

awaited by the bride, who was surrounded by her maids of honor and by a number of women. The rabbi

presented the young girl to the bridegroom, and he took her hand, while the bystanders showered grains of

wheat upon them and small pieces of money, which were picked up by the poor. Then, hand in hand, the

couple walked to the door of the synagogue, where they paused a while. After this the bride was led to her

own home so that she might complete her toilet. Under a large mantle of silk and fur, with puffed sleeves, she

wore a white robe, symbol of the mourning for Zion, the memory of which was not to leave her even on this

day of joy. The sign of mourning adopted for the bridegroom was a special headgear.

After the bridegroom had returned to the synagogue and placed himself near the Ark of the Law, the morning

service was held. Meanwhile the bride was led to the door of the synagogue, always to the accompaniment of

music, and the bridegroom, conducted by the rabbi and the heads of the community, went to receive her

there. He placed himself on her left, and preceded by his mother and the mother of the bride, he guided her to

the pulpit in the centre [center sic] of the synagogue. Here was pronounced the nuptial benediction.

The ceremony over, the husband hastened to his home to meet his wife and introduce her to the dwelling of

which she was to be the mistress. Here it was that the wedding feast was spread. Festivities continued for

several days, and the following Saturday special hymns were inserted in the service in honor of the

newlywedded couple.[25] No parade or pomp marred the beauty and grace of this ceremony, every act of

From this it is evident how much domestic virtues were prized among the Jews of the middle ages. The

family was expected to be a model of union and harmony, of tenderness of mate toward mate and parents

toward children. Gentleness and a spirit of trust were to preside over the household. Rashi, as we shall

But it was not given to Rashi to pass untroubled through his fruitful life of study. A terrible shock surprised

Some legends have a hardy life. Not the least remarkable of these is the myth that the Crusades were wholly

inspired by religious zeal. These great European movements are always represented as having been called

forth by enthusiasm and thirst for self sacrifice. A great wave of faith, we are told, swept over the masses,

and carried them on to the conquest of the Holy Sepulchre. There is another side to the shieldfaith fawning

on political expediency and egoism, and turning brigand. Without doubt many Christians went on the

Crusades impelled by religious conviction. But how many nourished less vague ideas in their hearts? Not to

mention those whose only aim was to escape from the consequences of their misdeeds and obtain absolution

and indulgences, not to mention those who were animated by a foolish sense of chivalry, by love of

adventure, of perilous risks, drawn by the attraction of the unknown and the marvellous [marvelous sic]

apart from these, there was the great mass, impelled by greed and thirst for pillage.

Complaisant historians express their admiring wonder at these "hundreds of thousands of men fighting with

their eyes doggedly fixed upon the Holy Sepulchre and dying in order to conquer it." They pity these

"multitudes of men who threw themselves on Islam the unknown, these naive, trusting spirits, who each day

imagined themselves at Jerusalem, and died on the road thither." Would it not be well for them to reserve a

little of their admiration and pity for the unfortunates that were the victims of these "naive" multitudes?

Ought they not to say that this religious fervor was a mixture chiefly of blind hate and bloody fanaticism?

After a victory the Crusaders would massacre the populations of the conquered cities, including in the

slaughter not only the Mohammedans but also the Oriental Christians. Then why should we wonder if on the

road to Palestine they laid violent hands on the Jews they found by the way?[27]

It is known what an important part France played in the First Crusade. From France issued the spark that set

the entire Occident aflame, and France furnished the largest contingent to the Crusades.

However, the disorders in France were merely local. If the rage for blood enkindled by the First Crusade

scarcely affected the Jews of France, it is because the population was concentrated on the banks of the Rhine.

But here its murderous frenzy knew no bounds. The people threw themselves on the Jewish communities of

Treves, Speyer, Worms, Mayence, and Cologue, and put to death all who refused to be converted (May to

July, 1096). The noise of events such as these perforce "found a path through the sad hearts" of the Jews of

Champagne; for they maintained lively and cordial relations with their brethren in the Rhine lands, many

being bound to them by ties of kinship. Among the martyrs of 1096 was Asher haLevi, who was the disciple

of Isaac ben Eheazar, Rashi's second teacher, and who died together with his mother, his two brothers, and

their families. From a Hebrew text we learn that the Jews of France ordered a fast and prayers in

commemoration of these awful massacres, the victims of which numbered not less than ten thousand.

But all could not sacrifice their lives for the sake of their faith. Though so large a number were slain by the

pious hordes or slew one another in order to escape violence, others allowed themselves to be baptized, or

adopted Christianity, in appearance at least. After the Crusaders were at a distance, on the way to their death

in the Orient, the Jews left behind could again breathe freely. Of many of them, Gregory of Tours might have

said that "the holy water had washed their bodies but not their hearts, and, liars toward God, they returned to

their original heresy." The emperor of Germany, Henry IV, it seems, even authorized those who had been

forced into baptism to return to Judaism, and the baptized Jews hastened to throw off the hateful mask. This

benevolent measure irritated the Christian clergy, and the Pope bitterly reproached the Emperor.

What sadder, more curious spectacle than that which followed? Many of those Jews who had remained

faithful to their religion would not consider the apostates as their brethren, unwilling apostates though they

This unwillingness to compound, showing so little generosity and charity, must have distressed Rashi

profoundly. For, when consulted in regard to the repulsed converts, he displayed a loftiness of view and a

breadth of tolerance which Maimonides himself could not equal. In similar circumstances Maimonides, it

seems, in intervening, yielded a little to personal prepossession. "Let us beware," wrote Rashi, "let us beware

of alienating those who have returned to us by repulsing them. They became Christians only through fear of

death; and as soon as the danger disappeared, they hastened to return to their faith."

Though the First Crusade affected the Jews of France only indirectly, it none the less marks a definite epoch

in their history. The fanaticism it engendered wreaked its fury upon the Jews, against whom all sorts of

odious charges were brought. They were placed in the same category as sorcerers and lepers, and among the

crimes laid at their door were ritual murder and piercing of the host. The instigations of the clergy did not

remain without effect upon a people lulled to sleep by its ignorance, but aroused to action by its faith. The

kings and seigneurs on their side exploited the Jews, and expelled them from their territories.

Rashi had the good fortune not to know these troublous times. But he discerned in a sky already overcast the

threatening premonitions of a tempest, and as though to guard his fellowJews against the danger, he left

them a work which was to be a viaticum and an asylum to them. When one sees how Rashi's work brought

nourishment, so to speak, to all later Jewish literature, which was a large factor in keeping Israel from its

threatened ruin, one is convinced that Rashi, aside from his literary efforts, contributed no slight amount

Even if the Crusades had not involved persecution of the Jews and so provoked the noble intervention of

Rashi, they would nevertheless have made themselves felt in Champagne. Count Hugo, among others,

remained in the Holy Land from 1104 to 1108; and his brother was killed at Ramleh in 1102. According to a

rather widespread legend, Rashi stood in intimate relations with one of the principal chiefs of the Crusade,

the famous duke of Lower Lotharingia, Godfrey of Bouillon. Historians have found that the part actually

played by the duke in the Crusades is smaller than that ascribed to him by tradition, yet the profound

impression he made on the popular imagination has remained, and legend soon endowed him with a fabulous

genealogy, making of him an almost mythical personage. A favorite trick of the makers of legends is to

connect their heroes with celebrated contemporaries, as though brilliance was reflected from one upon the

other. Thus Saladin was connected with Maimonides and with Richard the LionHearted, and, similarly,

The story goes that Godfrey, having heard rumors of the knowledge and wisdom of the rabbi of Troyes,

summoned Rashi to his presence to consult with him upon the issue of his undertaking. Rashi refused to

appear. Annoyed, Godfrey accompanied by his cavaliers went to the rabbi's school. He found the door open,

but the great building empty. By the strength of his magic Rashi had made himself invisible, but he himself

could see everything. "Where art thou, Solomon?" cried the cavalier. "Here I am," a voice answered; "what

does my lord demand?" Godfrey not seeing a living soul repeated his question, and always received the same

answer. But not a man to be seen! Utterly confounded, he left the building and met a disciple of Rashi's. "Go

tell thy master," he said, "that he should appear; I swear he has nothing to fear from me." The rabbi then

revealed himself.[28] "I see," Godfrey said to him, "that thy wisdom is great. I should like to know whether I

shall return from my expedition victorious, or whether I shall succumb. Speak without fear."

"Thou wilt take the Holy City," Rashi replied, "and thou wilt reign over Jerusalem three days, but on the

fourth day the Moslem will put thee to flight, and when thou returnest only three horses will be left to thee."

"It may be," replied Godfrey, irritated and disillusioned in seeing his future pictured in colors so sombre. "But

if I return with only one more horse than thou sayest, I shall wreak frightful vengeance upon thee. I shall

After several years of fighting Godfrey of Bouillon, ephemeral king of Jerusalem, took his homeward road

back to France, accompanied by three cavaliers, in all, 'then, four horses, one more than Rashi had predicted.

Godfrey remembered the rabbi's prophecy, and determined to carry out his threat. But when he entered the

city of Troyes, a large rock, loosened from the gate, fell upon one of the riders, killing him and his horse.

Amazed at the miracle, the duke perforce had to recognize that Rashi had not been wrong, and he wanted to

go to the seer to render him homage, but he learned that Rashi had died meanwhile. This grieved him greatly.

This legend was further embellished by the addition of details. Some placed the scene at Worms; others

asserted that the duke asked Rashi to accompany him to Lorraine; but Rashi nobly refused, as Maimonides

did later. All forgot that Godfrey of Bouillon after he left for the Crusades never saw his fatherland again, but

Rashi's life offers no more noteworthy events. He passed the balance of his days in study, in guiding the

community, and in composing his works. Without doubt, our lack of information concerning his last years is

A naive legend has it that he wanted to know who would be his companion in Paradise. He learned in a

dream that the man lived at Barcelona, and was called Abraham the Just. In order to become acquainted with

him while still on earth, Rashi, despite his great age, started forth on a journey to Barcelona. There he found a

very rich man, but, as was alleged, he was also very impious. However, Rashi was not long in discovering

that for all his life of luxury he was just and generous of spirit. Rashi even composed a work in his honor

entitled "The Amphitryon," in Hebrew, HaParnes. Do you think the work was lost? Not a bit of it. It still

exists, but it is called HaPardes. The legend is based upon a copyist's mistake. However, it is found in

Beyond a doubt Rashi died and was buried in his birthplace. Nevertheless the story is told, that as he was

about to return to France with his young wife, the daughter of his host at Prague, after his long trip of study

and exploration, which I have already described, an unknown man entered his dwelling and struck him a

mortal blow. But the people could not resign themselves to accept so miserable an end for so illustrious a

man, and the legend received an addition. At the very moment Rashi was to be buried, his wife ran up and

brought him back to life by means of a philtre. His fatherinlaw, in order not to excite the envy of his

enemies, kept the happy event a secret, and ordered the funeral to be held. The coffin was carried with great

pomp to the grave, which became an object of veneration for the Jews of Prague. In fact, a tomb is pointed

out as being that of the celebrated rabbi, and, as the inscription is effaced, the assertion can safely be made

Rashi's death was less touching and less tragic. We learn from a manuscript dated Thursday, the twentyninth

of Tammuz, in the year 4865 of the Creation (July 13, 1105), that Rashi died at Troyes. He was then

It is as though the echo of the regrets caused by Rashi's death resounded in the following note in an old

manuscript: "As the owner of a figtree knows when it is time to cull the figs, so God knew the appointed

time of Rashi, and carried him away in his hour to let him enter heaven. Alas! he is no more, for God has

taken him." These few lines, without doubt the note of some copyist, show with what deep respect the

memory of Rashi came to be cherished but shortly after his death. Like Rabbeun Gershom he was awarded

after his death the title of "Light of the Captivity." But later the title was applied only to Gershom, as though

Rashi died "full of days," having led a life of few incidents, because it was uniformly devoted to study and

labor. He was like a patriarch who is surrounded by the affection of his children and by the respect of his

contemporaries. To future generations he bequeathed the memory of his virtues and the greatness of his work.

And his memory has survived the neglect of time and the ingratitude of man. Posterity has enveloped his

brow with a halo of glory, and after the lapse of eight centuries the radiance of his personality remains

Not only is there little information concerning the incidents of Rashi's life, but also there are only a few

sources from which we can learn about his mental makeup and introduce ourselves, so to speak, into the

circle of his thoughts and ideas. Generally one must seek the man in his work. But into writings so objective

as those of a commentator who does not even exert himself to set forth his method and principles in a preface,

a man is not apt to put much of his own personality. Moreover, Rashi was disposed to speak of himself as

little as possible. From time to time, however, he lets a confidence escape, and we treasure it the more

Fortunately we can get to know him a little better through his letters, that is, through the Responsa addressed

by him to those who consulted him upon questions of religious law. Another source, no less precious, is

afforded by the works of his pupils, who noted with pious care the least acts or expressions of their master

I shall endeavor to sum up all this information, so that we may get a picture of the man and trace his features

Needless to say, Rashi's conduct was always honorable and his manners irreproachable. To be virtuous was

not to possess some special merit; it was the strict fulfilment [fulfillment sic] of the Law. We have seen that

Rashi's life was pure; and his life and more particularly his work reveal a firm, controlled nature, a simple,

frank character, clear judgment, upright intentions, penetrating intelligence, and profound good sense. The

Talmudic maxim might be applied to him: "Study demands a mind as serene as a sky without clouds." His

was a questioning spirit, ever alert. He had the special gift of viewing the outer world intelligently and fixing

his attention upon the particular object or the par ticular circumstance that might throw light upon a fact or a

text. For instance, although he did not know Arabic, he remem bered certain groups of related words in the

language, which had either been called to his attention or which he had met with in reading. He noticed of his

own accord that "Arabic words begin with 'al'." To give another example of this discernment: he explains a

passage of the Talmud by recalling that he saw Jews from Palestine beating time to mark the melody when

The clearness and poise ef Rashi's intellectqualities which he possessed in common with other French

rabbis, though in a higher degreestand in favorable contrast with the sickly symbolism, the unwholesome

search for mystery, which tormented the souls of ecclesiastics, from the monk Raoul Glaber up to the great

Yet the Jews of Northern France were not, as one might suppose from their literature, cold and dry of

temperament. They were sensitive and tenderhearted. They did not forever lead the austere life of scholarly

seclusion; they did not ignore the affections nor the cares of family; they knew how to look upon life and its

But they did not go to the other extreme and become philosophers. Traditional religion was to them the entire

truth. They never dreamed that antagonism might arise between faith and reason. From a theological point of

viewif the modern term may be employedRashi shared the ideas of his time. In knowledge or character one

may raise oneself above one's contemporaries; but it is rare not to share their beliefs and superstitions. Now,

it must be admitted, the Jews of Northern France did not cherish religion in all its ideal purity. The effect of

their faith, their piety, upon these simple souls was to make them somewhat childish, and give their practices

a somewhat superstitious tinge. Thus, Rashi says in the name of his teacher Jacob ben Yakar, that one should

smell spices Saturday evening, because hell, after having its work interrupted by the Sabbath, begins to

exhale a bad odor again in the evening. This naive faith at least preserved Rashi from pursuing the paths not

always avoided by his coreligionists of Spain and the Provence, who dabbled in philosophy. Rashi never

was conscious of the need to justify certain narratives or certain beliefs which shocked some readers of the

Bible. Not until he came upon a passage in the Talmud which awakened his doubts did he feel called upon to

explain why God created humanity, though He knew it would become corrupt, and why He asks for

information concerning things which cannot escape His omniscience. But Rashi was not bewildered by

certain anthropomorphic passages in the Bible, the meaning of which so early a work as the Targum had

veiled. Nor was he shocked by the fact that God let other peoples adore the stars, and that altars had been

consecrated to Him elsewhere than at Jerusalem. Thus his plain common sense kept him from wandering

along bypaths and losing himself in the subtleties in which the Ibn Ezras and the Nahmanides were

entangled. His common sense rendered him the same service in the interpretation of many a Talmudic

passage that Saadia and Nissim had thought incapable of explanation unless wrested from its literal meaning.

Since justice requires the admission, I shall presently dwell upon the points in which Rashi's lack of

philosophic training was injurious to him. Here it is necessary merely to note wherein it was useful to him. It

was not he, for instance, who held Abraham and Moses to have been the precursorsno, the disciplesof

In discussing the fundamental goodness of Rashi's nature, no reserves nor qualifications need be made.

Historians have vied with one another in praising his humanity, his kindliness, his indulgent, charitable spirit,

his sweetness, and his benevolence. He appealed to the spirit of concord, and exhorted the communities to

live in peace with one another. His goodness appears in the following Responsum to a question, which the

interrogator did not sign: "I recognized the author of the letter by the writing. He feared to sign his name,

because he suspects me of being hostile to him. But I assure him I am not; I have quite the contrary feeling

for him." A still quainter characteristic is illustrated by the following decision which he rendered: "If, during

the prayer after a meal, one interrupts oneself to feed an animal, one does not commit a reprehensible act, for

one should feed one's beasts before taking nourishment, as it is written: 'And I will send grass in thy fields for

thy cattle, that thou mayest eat and be full.'" But the quality Rashi possessed in the highest degree was

simplicity, modesty, one may almost say, humility; and what contributed not a little to the even tenor of his

Such was his nature even when a youth in the academies of Lorraine. He himself tells how once, when he

was in the house of his teacher, he noticed that a ritual prescription was being violated in dressing the meat of

a sheep. His teacher, occupied with other matters, did not notice the infringement of the law, and the pupil

was in a quandary. To keep quiet was to cover up the wrong and make it irreparable; to speak and pronounce

a decision before his master was to he lacking in respect for him. So, to escape from the embarrassing

situation, Rashi put a question to his master bearing upon the dressing of the meat.

Toward all his teachers Rashi professed the greatest respect. On a certain question they held wrong opinions,

and Rashi wrote: "I am sure they did not cause irremediable harm, but they will do well in the future to

abstain from such action." This shows at the same time that Rashi did not hesitate to be independent, did not

blindly accept all their teachings. When he believed an opinion wrong, he combated it; when he believed an

opinion right, he upheld it, even against his masters. On one occasion, Isaac haLevi delivered a sentence

which to his pupil seemed too strict. "I plied him with questions," says Rashi, "to which he would not pay

attention, although he could not give any proof in support of his opinion." To the pupils of Isaac, he wrote: "I

do not pretend to abolish the usages that you follow, but as soon as I can be with you, I shall ask you to come

over to my opinion. I do not wish to discuss the stricter practices adopted in the school of Jacob ben Yakar

(Isaac's predecessor), until I shall have established that my idea is the correct one. He will then acknowledge

This is the circumstance referred to. While still a pupil of Isaac haLevi, Rashi had accepted a decision of his

without having thoroughly studied it. Later he became convinced that his teacher was mistaken, but he bore it

Rashi displayed the same reserve in the exercise of his rabbinical functions, especially when the community

appealing to him was not that of Troyes. That of ChalonssurSaone once consulted him concerning an

interdiction imposed by R. Gershom, and asked him to repeal it; but Rashi modestly declined to give an

Rashi's modesty is also illustrated by the tone of his correspondence. Deferential or indulgent, he never

adopted a superior manner, was never positive or dogmatic. When his correspondents were wrong, he sought

to justify their mistakes; when he combated the explanation of another, he never used a cutting expression, or

Finally, it seems, he did not hesitate to recognize his own mistakes, even when a pupil pointed them out to

him, and it is possible to select from his commentaries a number of avowals of error. In his Responsa he

wrote: "The same question has already been put to me, and I gave a faulty answer. But now I am convinced

of my mistake, and I am prepared to give a decision better based on reason. I am grateful to you for having

drawn my attention to the question; thanks to you, I now see the truth." This question concerned a point in

Talmudic law; but he was willing to make a similar admission in regard to the explanation of a Biblical verse.

"In commenting on Ezekiel I made a mistake in the explanation of this passage, and as, at the end of the

chapter, I gave the true sense, I contradicted myself. But in taking up the question again with my friend

An old scholar named R. Dorbal, or Durbal, addressed a question to Rashi, and Rashi in his reply expressed

his astonishment that an old man should consult so young a man as he. Assuredly, said Rashi, it was because

he wanted to give a proof of his benevolence and take the occasion for congratulating Rashi on his response,

It would take too long to enumerate all the passages in which Rashi avows his ignorance, and declares he

We have seen that Rashi did not hesitate to acknowledge that he owed certain information to his friends and

pupils, and that his debates with them had sometimes led him to change his opinion. The confession he made

one day to his grandson Samuel about the inadequacy of his Biblical Commentary[31] has become

celebrated, and justly so. There is something touching in the way he lis tened to the opinions of his

grandson, and accepted them because they appeared correct to himthe man who loved truth and science

above everything else. Like many noble spirits, he considered his work imperfect, and would have liked to do

it all over again. This modesty and this realization of the truth are the ruling qualities of his nature.

The ideal Jew combines virtue with knowledge, and tradition ascribes to Rashi universal knowledge. In the

first place he was a polyglot. Popular admiration of him, based upon the myth concerning his travels and

upon a superficial reading of this works, assigned to him the old miracle of the Apostles. The languages he

was supposed to know were Latin, Greek, Arabic, and Persian. He was also said to be acquainted with

astronomy, and even with the Kabbalah, of which, according to the Kabbalists, he was an ardent adept. After

his death, they say, he appeared to his grandson Samuel to teach him the true pronunciation of the Ineffable

Name. Medical knowledge was also attributed to Rashi, and a medical work ascribed to his authorship. One

scholar went so far as to call him a calligrapher.[32] From his infancy, it was declared, he astonished the

world by his learning and by his memory; and when, toward the end of his life, he went to Barcelo na, he

These errors, invented, or merely repeated, but, at all events, given credence by the Jewish chroniclers and

the Christian bibliographers, cannot hold out against the assaults of criticism. To give only one example of

Rashi's geographical knowledge, it will suffice to recall how he represented the configuration of Palestine and

Babylonia, or rather how he tried to guess it from the texts.[33] His ignorance of geography is apparent in his

commentaries, which contain a rather large number of mistakes. In addition, Rashi was not always familiar

with natural products, or with the creations of art, or with the customs and usages of distant countries. Still

less was a rabbi of the eleventh century likely to have an idea of what even Maimonides was unacquainted

with, the local color and the spirit of dead civilizations. Rashito exemplify this ignoranceexplained Biblical

expressions by customs obtaining in his own day: "to put into possession," the Hebrew of which is "to fill the

hand," he thinks he explains by comparing it with a feudal ceremony and discovering in it something

analagous [analogous sic] to the act of putting on gauntlets. In general, the authors of Rashi's time, paying

little regard to historic setting, explained ancient texts by popular legends, or by Christian or feudal customs.

Therefore, one need not scruple to point out this defect in Rashi's knowledge. Like his compatriots he did not

know the profane branches of learning. He was subject to the same limitations as nearly the entire body of

clergy of his day. While the Arabs so eagerly and successfully cultivated philosophy, medicine, astronomy,

and physics, Christian Europe was practically ignorant of these sciences. Finally, one will judge still less

severely of Rashi's knowledgeor lack of knowledgeif one remembers what science was in the Christian

world of the middle agesit was childish, tinged with superstition, extravagantly absurd, and fantastically

naive. Rashi believed that the Nile flooded its banks once every forty years; but Joinville, who lived two

centuries later, and who was in Egypt, tells even more astonishing things than this about the marvellous

Besides French, the only profane language Rashi knew was German. The explanations he gives according to

the Greek, the Arabic, and the Persian, he obtains from secondary sources. Indeed, they are sometimes faulty,

and they reveal the ignorance of the man who reproduced without comprehending them. No great interest

attaches to the mention of his chronological mistakes and his confusion of historical facts. His astronomic

knowledge is very slight, and resolves itself into what he borrowed from the Italian Sabbatai Donnolo, of

But limited as his knowledge was to Biblical, Talmudic, and Rabbinical literature, it was for that reason all

the greater in the province he had explored in its inmost recesses. This is shown by his numerous citations,

the sureness of his touch, and his mastery of all the subjects of which he treats.

Thanks to the citations, we can definitely ascertain what we might call his library.

Needless to say, the first place was held by the Bible, which, as will be seen, he knew perfectly. He wrote

commentaries upon the Bible almost in its entirety, besides frequently referring to it in his Talmudic

commentaries. His favorite guide for the explanation of the Pentateuch is the Aramaic version by Onkelos.

For the Prophets he used the Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel.[34] He was entirely ignorant of the Apocryphal

books. The Wisdom of Ben Sira, for instance, like the Megillat Taanit, or Roll of Fasts,[35] were known to

On the other hand Rashi was thoroughly conversant with the whole field of Talmudic literaturefirst of all

the treatises on religious jurisprudence, the Mishnah,[36] Tosefta,[37] the Babylonian and, in part, the

Palestinian Gemara;[36] then, the Halakic Midrashim, such as the Mekilta, the Sifra, the Sifre,[38] and

Haggadic compilations, such as the Rabbot, [39] the Midrash on the Song of Songs, on Lamentations,

Ecclesiastes, the Psalms, and Samuel, the Pesikta,[40] the Tanhuma, [41] and the Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer.[42]

According to tradition, Rashi has set the Talmudic period as the date of composition of two works which

modern criticism has placed in the period of the Geonim. These works are the historic chronicle Seder

Olam[43] and the gnostic or mystic trea tise on the Creation, the Sefer Yezirah; the forerunner of the

Kabbalah. Besides these anonymous works, Rashi knew the Responsa of the Geonim, which he frequently

cites, notably those of Sherira[44] and his son Hai,[45] the Sheeltot of R. Aha,[46] and the Halakot

Gedolot, attributed by the French school to Yehudai Gaon.[47] In the same period must be placed two other

writers concerning whom we are not wholly enlightened, Eleazar haKalir and the author of the Jewish

chronicle entitled Yosippon. Eleazar, who lived in the eighth or ninth century, was one of the first liturgical

poets both as to time and as to merit. The author of the Yosippon undoubtedly lived in Italy in the tenth

century. Rashi, like all his contemporaries, confounded the two respectively with the Tanna R. Eleazar and

the celebrated Josephus. They were considered authorities by all the rabbis of the middle ages, the first for his

language and his Midrashic traditions, the second for his historical knowledge.[48]

So far as the literature contemporary, or nearly contemporary, with Rashi is concerned, it must be stated that

Rashi had read all the works written in Hebrew, while the whole of Arabic literature was inaccessible to him.

Without doubt he knew the grammarian Judah Ibn Koreish[49] only by the citations from him. On the other

hand he made much use of the works of the two Spanish grammarians, Menahem ben Saruk and Dunash ben

Labrat,[50] likewise the works of Moses haDarshan, of Narbonne. Naturally, he was still better versed in all

the rabbinical literature of Northern France and of Germany. He frequently cites R. Gershom, whom he once

called "Father and Light of the Captivity," as well as his contemporaries Joseph Tob Elem, Eliezer the Great,

and Meshullam ben Kalonymos, of Mayence. I have already mentionedand will repeat further on how much

For the sake of completeness, it is necessary to add to this list all the contemporaries from whom Rashi

learned either directly or indirectly. For information concerning the Talmud, Isaac ben Menahem the Great,

of Orleans, may be mentioned among these; and for information concerning the Bible, Menahem ben Helbo,

whom Rashi probably cited through the medium of one of his pupils or his writings, for he himself was not

If one also takes into consideration the less important and the anonymous persons whose books or oral

teachings Rashi cited, one will be convinced that he had what is called a wellstocked brain, and that his

knowledge in his special domain was as vast as it was profound, since it embraced the entire field of

knowledge which the Jews of Northern France of that time could possibly cultivate. His learning was not

universal; far from it; but he was master of all the knowledge his countrymen possessed.

Thanks to this erudition, he could fill, at least in part, the gaps in his scientific education. In fact, an

understanding of Talmudic law presupposes a certain amount of informationgeometry and botany for

questions concerning land, astronomy for the fixation of the calendar, zoology for dietary laws, and so on.

Rashi's knowledge, then, was less frequently defective than one is led to suppose, although sometimes he

lagged behind the Talmud itself. It has been noted that of 127 or 128 French glosses bearing upon the names

of plants, 62 are absolutely correct. In history Rashi preserved some traditions which we can no longer verify,

but which seem to be derived from sources worthy of confidence; and if it had not been for Rashi, we would

What he knew, therefore, he knew chiefly through reading and through the instruction of his teachers, to

whom he often appealed; for he possessed that most precious quality in a scholar, conscience, scientific

probity. One example will suffice to give an idea of his method. Once, when he was searching for a text in his

copy of the Talmud, he found it corrected. But he did not remember if he himself or his teacher had made the

correction. So he consulted a manuscript in which he had noted down the variants of his teacher Isaac of

Mayence. Not being able to determine from this, he begged his correspondent to look up the manuscript of

This characteristic leads us back to a consideration of Rashi's nature, upon which one likes to dwell, because

it makes him a sage in the most beautiful and the largest meaning of the word, because it makes him one of

the most sympathetic personalities in all Jewish history. If Rashi had left nothing but the remembrance of an

But Rashi bequeathed more than this to posterity; he left one, nay, two monuments to awaken admiration and

call forth gratitude. They assure him fame based on a solid foundation. What matter if we Jews fail to honor

our great men with statues of marble and bronze, if they themselves establish their glory on pedestals that

defy the ravages of time? Statues raised by the hand of man are perishable as man himself; the works

Rashi stands before us a teacher distinguished and original, a religious leader full of tact and delicate feeling,

a scholar clearheaded and at the same time lovinghearted. In which capacity, as teacher, religious leader,

scholar, does he evoke our deepest admiration? Shall we accord it to the one who made a home for Talmudic

studies on the banks of the Seine, and so gave a definite impetus to French Jewish civilization? Or shall we

accord it to the one who for nearly forty years presided over the spiritual destinies of an active and studious

population and fulfilled the duties of a rabbi; with all the more devotion, without doubt, because he did not

have the title of rabbi? Or should we not rather pay our highest tribute to Rashi the man, so upright and

modest, so simple and amiable, who has won for himself the veneration of posterity as much by the qualities

of his heart as by those of his intellect, as much by his goodness and kindliness as by the subtlety and acumen

of his mind, in a word, as much by his character as by his knowledge? Nevertheless his knowledge was

extraordinary and productive of great works, which we shall consider in the following chapters.

As spiritual chief of the French Jews, it was natural that Rashi should occupy himself with the source of their

intellectual and religious activity, with the Bible. But in his capacity of Talmudist and teacher, it was equally

natural that he should devote himself to the explanation of the Talmud, which formed the basis of instruction

in the schools, besides serving to regulate the acts of everyday life and the practices of religion. And as a

rabbinical authority he was called upon to resolve the problems that arose out of individual difficulties or out

of communal questions. We need no other guide than this to lead us to an understanding of his works. But not

to omit anything essential, it would be well to mention some collections which were the result of his

Rashi owes his great reputation to his commentaries on the two great works that comprehend Jewish life in its

entirety, and lie at the very root of the intellectual development of Judaism, the Bible and the Talmud. His

commentaries involving an enormous amount of labor are all but complete; they fail to cover only a few

books of the Bible and a few treatises of the Talmud. The conjecture has been made that at first he set himself

to commenting on the Talmud, and then on the Bible, because at the �7 3 �end of his life he expressed

the wish that he might begin the Biblical commentary all over again. But this hypothesis is not justified. The

unfinished state of both commentaries, especially the one on the Talmud, shows that he worked on them at

the same time. But they were not written without interruption, not "in one spurt," as the college athlete might

say. Rashi worked at them intermittently, going back to them again and again. It is certain that so far as the

Talmudic treatises are concerned, he did not exert himself to follow the order in which they occur. He may

have taken them up when he explained them in his school. But in commenting on the Bible, it seems, he

adhered to the sequence of the books, for it was on the later books that he did not have the time to write

commentaries. Moreover, he sometimes went back to his commentary on a Biblical book or a Talmudic

treatise, not because he worked to order, like Ibn Ezra, and as circumstances dictated, but because he was not

satisfied with his former attempt, and because, in the course of his study, the same subject came up for his

consideration. Though the commentaries, then, were not the result of long, steady application, they demanded

longcontinued efforts, and they were, one may say, the business of his whole life. The rabbi Isaac of

Vienna, who possessed an autograph commentary of Rashi, speaks of the numerous erasures and various

The commentaries of Rashi, which do not bear special titles, are not an uninterrupted exposition of the entire

work under consideration, and could not be read from cover to cover without recourse to the text explained;

they are rather detached glosses, postils, to borrow an expression from ecclesiastical literature, upon terms or

phrases presenting some difficulties. They are always preceded by the word or words to be explained.

It is evident, then, that Rashi's works do not bear witness to great originality, or, better, to great creative

force. Rashi lacks elevation in his point of view, breadth of outlook, and largeness of conception. He

possessed neither literary taste nor esthetic sense. He was satisfied to throw light upon an obscurity, to fill up

a lacuna, to justify an apparent imperfection, to explain a peculiarity of style, or to reconcile contradictions.

He never tried to call attention to the beauties of the text or to give a higher idea of the original; he never

succeeded in bringing into relief the humanity of a law, or the universal bearing of an event.

Rashi failed also to regard a thing in its entirety. He did not write prefaces to his works setting forth the

contents of the book and the method to be pursued.[51] In the body of the commentaries, he hardly ever

dwells on a subject at length, but contents himself with a brief explanation. In short, his horizon was limited

and he lacked perspective. It is to be regretted that he did not know the philosophic works of Saadia, who

would have opened up new worlds to him, and would have enlarged the circle of his ideas. If he had read

only the Biblical commentaries of the great Gaon, he would have learned from him how to grasp a �7 3

Even if he had limited himself to the Talmud, Rashi, without doubt, would have been incapable of raising a

vast and harmonious edifice, like the Mishneh Torah of Maimonides. He did not possess the art of developing

the various sides of a subject so as to produce a wellordered whole. He lacked not only literary ambition,

but also that genius for organizing and systematizing which classifies and coordinates all the laws. Though

This defect, common to his contemporaries, arose, possibly, from a certain timidity. He believed that he

ought to efface himself behind his text, and not let his own idea take the place of the author's, especially when

the text was a religious law and the author the Divine legislator. But it seems that his power of creative

thought was not strong, and could exercise itself only upon the more original works of others. We find

analogous features in scholastic literature, which developed wholly in the shadow of the Scriptures, the

This narrow criticism, this eye for detail, this lack of general ideas and of guiding principles at least guarded

Rashi against a danger more original spirits failed to escape, namely, of reading preconceived notions into the

text, of interpreting it by an individual method, and, thus, of gathering more meaning, or another meaning,

than was intended by the author. Unlike the Jewish and Christian theologians, Rashi felt no need to do

violence to the text in order to reconcile it with his scientific and philosophic beliefs.

Though Rashi, as I said, had not a creative intellect, he yet had all the qualities of a commentator. First of all,

he possessed clearness, the chief requisite for a commentary, which undertakes to explain a work

unintelligible to its readers. "To write like Rashi" has become a proverbial expression for "to write clearly

and intelligibly." Rashi always or nearly always uses the expression one expects. He finds the explanation

that obtrudes itself because it is simple and easy; he excels in unravelling [unraveling sic] difficulties and

illuminating obscurities. To facilitate comprehension by the reader Rashi resorted to the use of pictures and

diagrams, some of which still appear in his Talmudic commentary, though a number have been suppressed by

the editors. Once, when asked for the explanation of a difficult passage in Ezekiel, he replied that he had

nothing to add to what he had said in his commentary, but he would send a diagram which would render the

text more intelligible. It is remarkable with what ease, even without the aid of illustrations, he unravelled

[unraveled sic] the chapters of Ezekiel in which the Prophet describes the Temple of his fancy; or the equally

Essentially this power of exposition is the attribute of intelligent insight. Rashi's was the clearest, the most �

�7 3 �transparent mindno clouds nor shadows, no ambiguities, no evasions. He leaves nothing to be

taken for granted, he makes no mental reservations. He is clearness and transparency itself.

But Rashi's language is not merely clear; it is extremely precise. It says with accuracy exactly what it sets out

to say. Rashi did not hesitate sometimes to coin new words for the sake of conveying his thought. He always

heeded the connotation of a word, and took the context into account. Once, in citing a Talmudic explanation

of a verse in Jeremiah, he rejected it, because it did not square with the development of the thought; and often

he would not accept an interpretation, because a word in the text was given a meaning which it did not have

in any other passage. He grasped, and rendered in turn with perfect accuracy, shades of meaning and

subtleties of language; and the fine expression of relations difficult to solve surprises and charms the reader

Commentators in the effort to be clear are often wordy, and those who aim at brevity often lack perspicuity.

The latter applies to Abraham Ibn Ezra, who might have said with the poet, "I avoid longwindedness, and I

become obscure." Samuel ben Meir, on the other hand, grandson and pupil of Rashi, is, at least in his

Talmudic commentaries, so longwinded and prolix that at first glance one can detect the additions made by

him to the commentaries of his grandfather. It is related, that once, when Rashi was ill, Samuel finished the

commentary Rashi had begun, and when Rashi got well he weighed the leaves on which his pupil had written

and said: "If thou hadst commented on the whole Talmud after this fashion, thy commentary would have been

as heavy as a chariot." The story, which attributes somewhat uncharitable words to Rashi, yet contains an

He rarely goes into very long explanations. Often he solves a difficulty by one word, by shooting one flash of

light into the darkness. The scholar and bibliographer Azulai scarcely exaggerated when he said that Rashi

could express in one letter that for which others needed whole pages. A close study of the Talmudic

commentaries shows that he replied in advance and very briefly to the questions of many a Talmudist.

It is only in considering the difficult passages that he goes to greater length to note and discuss explanation

previously propounded. Take for example what he says on the words 'al mut Laben', the superscription of

Psalm ix, which are a crux interpretum. At the same time the reader will observe how ancient are certain

interpretations of modern exegetes. Rashi begins by refuting those who allege that David wrote this Psalm on

the death of his son Absalom; for in that case Haben and not Laben would have been necessary, and nothing

in the text bears out this explanation. Others transposed the letters of Laben to read Nabal, but there is no

reference to Nabal in this Psalm. Others again, like the Great Massorah, make a single word of almut.

Menahem and Dunash,[52] each proposes an explanation which seems to be incorrect. The Pesikta, in view

of verse 6, thinks the Psalm refers to Amalek and Esau; and this, too, is not satisfying. Finally, Rashi gives

his own explanation, scarcely better than the others, that the Psalm deals with the rejuvenation and purity of

When difficult questions are propounded by the Talmud, or arise out of a consideration of the Talmud, Rashi

cites previous explanations or parallel texts. But this is exceptional. As a rule he finds with marvellous

[marvelous sic] nicety and without circumlocution the exact word, the fitting expression, the neces sary turn.

One or two words suffice for him to sum up an obser vation, to anticipate a question, to forestall an

unexpressed objection, to refute a false interpretation, or to throw light upon the true meaning of word or

phrase. This is expressed in the saying, "In Rashi's time a drop of ink was worth a piece of gold." It was not

without justification though, perhaps, the practice was carried to excess that for centuries commentaries

were written upon these suggestive words of his under the title Dikduke Rashi, the "Niceties of Rashi." Even

at the present day his commentaries are minutely studied for the purpose of finding a meaning for each word.

In fact, because of this concise, lapidary style, his commentaries called into existence other commentaries,

which set out to interpret his ideas, and frequently found ideas that did not belong there. Though the

authors of these super commentaries were Rashi's admirers, they were scarcely his imitators.

In this regard it is of interest to compare the commentary of Rashi upon the beginning of the treatise Baba

Batra with that of Samuel ben Meir upon the end of the treatise, which Rashi did not succeed in reaching. An

even more striking comparison may be made with the commentary of Nissim Gerundi upon the abridgment

of the Talmud by Alfasi, which is printed opposite to that of Rashi.[53] Rashi's style is unmistakable, and

prolixness in a commentary attributed to him is proof against the alleged pater nity.

By virtue of these qualities, possessed by Rashi in so high a degree, he is true to the traditions of French

literature, which is distinguished for simplicity and clearness among all literatures. Besides, he compares with

the French writers of the middle ages in his disregard of "style." It is true, he handles with ease Hebrew and

Aramaic, or, rather, the rabbinical idiom, which is a mixture of the two. But he is not a writer in the true sense

of the word. His language is simple and somewhat careless, and his writing lacks all traces of esthetic quality.

Since the Bible and the Talmud made appeal to readers of another time and another language than those in

which they were written, Rashi's first duty was to explain them, then, if necessary, translate them, now to add

clearness to the explanation, now to do away with it wholly. These translations, sometimes bearing upon

entire passages, more often upon single words, were called glosses, Hebrew laazim (better, leazim), the plural

of laaz. They were French words transcribed into Hebrew characters, and they formed an integral part of the

text. Rashi had recourse to them in his teaching when the precise Hebrew expression was lacking, or when he

explained difficult terms, especially technical terms of arts and crafts. The use of a French word saved him a

long circumlocution. Sometimes, the laaz followed a definition or description, in a striking manner giving the

In employing these French laazim, Rashi introduced no innovation. His predecessors, especially his masters,

had already made use of them, perhaps in imitation of the Christian commentators, who likewise inserted

words of the vernacular in their Latin explanations. The Latin speaking clergy were often forced to employ

the common speech for instructing the people; and in the eleventh century beginnings were made in the

translation of the Old and New Testament by the rendition of important passages. But while it perturbed the

Church to see the Scriptures spread too freely before the gaze of the layman, the rabbis never feared that the

ordinary Jew might know his Bible too well, and they availed themselves of the laazim without scruple. The

frequent occurrence of the laazim is one of a number of proofs that French was the current speech of the Jews

of France. Hebrew, like Latin among the Christian clergy, was merely the language of literature and of the

liturgy. It is noteworthy that the treatises containing most laazim bear upon questions affecting the common

acts of daily life upon the observance of the Sabbath (treatise Shabbat), upon the dietary laws, (Hullin), and

upon laws concerning the relations of Jews with nonJews (Abodah Zarah). Rashi extended the use of the

laazim, developing this mode of explanation; and the commentaries of his disciples, who continued his

method, are strewn with French words, which were then inserted in the Hebrew French glossaries. Several

of these glossaries are about to be published. After Rashi's commentaries became a classic wherever there

were Jews, the laazim were often translated into a foreign language, as into German or Italian. The Pseudo

Rashi on Alfasi,[54] following the manuscripts, sometimes presents a German translation now with, now

Rashi's Biblical and Talmudic commentaries contain 3157 laazim, of which 967 occur in the Biblical

commentaries and 2190 in the Talmudic, forming in the two commentaries together a vocabulary of about

two thousand different words. In the Biblical commentaries, concerned, as a rule, not so much with the

explanation of the meaning of a word as with its grammatical form, the laazim reproduce the person, tense, or

gender of the Hebrew word; in the Talmudic commentaries, where the difficulty resides in the very sense of

At the present time these laazim are of interest to us, not only as the expression of Rashi's ideas, but also as

vehicles of information concerning the old French. As early an investigator as Zunz remarked that if one

could restore them to their original form, they would serve as a lexicon of the French language at the time of

the Crusades. But even Zunz did not realize the full value to be extracted from them. The rare specimens that

we possess of the langue d'oil[55] of the eleventh century belong to the Norman dialect and to the language

of poetry. Written, as they were, in Champagne, the laazim of Rashi represent almost the pure French (the

language spoken in Champagne lay between the dialect of the IledeFrance and that of Lorraine [56]), and,

what is more, they were words in common use among the people, for they generally designated objects of

daily use. These laazim, then, constitute a document of the highest importance for the reconstruction of old

French, as much from a phonetic and morphologic point of view, as from the point of view of lexicography;

for the Hebrew transcription fixes to a nicety the pronunciation of the word because of the richness of the

Hebrew in vowels and because of the strict observance of the rules of transcription. Moreover, in the matter

of lexicography the laazim offer useful material for the history of certain words, and bring to our knowledge

popular words not to be found in literary and official texts. In the case of many of these terms, their

appearance in Rashi is the earliest known; otherwise they occur only at a later date. And it is not difficult to

put the laazim back into French, because of the welldefined system of transcription employed. Even the

laws of declension (or what remained of declension in the old French) are observed.

Unfortunately, the great use made of Rashi's commentaries necessitated a large number of copies, and

frequent copying produced many mistakes. Naturally, it was the laazim that suffered most from the ignorance

and carelessness of the copyists and printers, especially in the countries in which French was not the current

language. Efforts have been made within the last two centuries to restore the laazim. Mendelssohn and his

associates applied themselves to the commentary on the Pentateuch, Lowe, to the Psalms, Neumann, to the

Minor Prophets, Jeitteles and Laudau, to the whole of the Bible, and the Bondi brothers, Dormitzer, and,

above all, Landau, to the Talmudic commentaries. But these authors, not having consulted the manuscripts

and knowing the French language of the middle ages only imperfectly, arrived at insufficient results. Even

the identifications of Berliner in his critical edition of the commentary on the Pentateuch are not always exact

Arsene Darmesteter (18461888), one of the elect of French Judaism and a remarkable scholar in the

philology of the Romance languages, realized that in the commentaries of Rashi "the science of philology

possesses important material upon which to draw for the history of the language in an early stage of its

developinent." With the aim of utilizing this material, he visited the libraries of England and Italy, and

gathered much that was important; but his numerous occupations and his premature death prevented him

from finishing and publishing his work. In the interests of French philology as well as for a complete

understanding of the text of Rashi, it would be advantageous to publish the notes that he collected. In fact,

such a work will appear, but unfortunately not in the proportions Darmesteter would have given it.

Nevertheless, it will be found to contain information and unique information, upon the history, the phonetics,

and the orthography of medieval French; for the first literary works, which go as far back as the eleventh

century, the life of Saint Alexius and the epic of Roland, have not come down to us in the form in which they

were written. "What would the trouveres of Roland and the clerics of Saint Alexius have said if they had been

told that one day the speech of their warrior songs and their pious homilies would need the aid of the Ghetto

to reach the full light of day, and the living sound of their words would fall upon the ears of posterity through

In this chapter I have made some general observations upon the composition and the method of the Biblical

and Talmudic Commentaries of Rashi. Concerning their common characteristics there is little to add, except

to remark that the explanations are generally simple, natural, and unforced. This is especially true of the

Talmudic commentaries. Rashi in large part owes the foundations upon which his works are built to his

predecessors, and no higher praise could be accorded him than to say that he knew the great mass of

However, Rashi rather frequently gave his own personal explanation, either because he did not know another,

or because those propounded before him did not seem adequate or satisfying. In the latter case, he usually put

down the rejected explanation before setting forth his own. Yet there are cases in which intelligence and

imagination fail to supply knowledge of some special circumstance; and such lack of knowledge led Rashi

into many errors. On the whole, however, the commentaries contain invaluable information, and are of the

very highest importance for Jewish history and literature, because of the citations in them of certain lost

works, or because of hints of certain facts which otherwise would be unknown. Modern historians justly

recognize in Rashi one of the most authoritative representatives of rabbinical tradition, and it is rare for them

"Thanks to Rashi the Torah has been renewed. The word of the Lord in his mouth was truth. His way was

perfect and always the same. By his commentary he exalted the Torah and fortified it. All wise men and all

scholars recognize him as master, and acknowledge that there is no commentary comparable with his." This

enthusiastic verdict of Eliezer ben Nathan[58] has been ratified by the following generations, which, by a

clever play upon words, accorded him the title of Parshandata, Interpreter of the Law.[59] And, verily,

during his life Rashi had been an interpreter of the Law, when he explained the Scriptures to his disciples and

to his other coreligionists; and he prolonged this beneficent activity in his commentaries, in which one

seems to feel his passionate love of the law of God and his lively desire to render the understanding of it easy

to his people. Yet it is true that all scholars did not share in the general admiration of Rashi, and discordant

If one reflects that the Bible is at the same time the most important and the most obscure of the books that

antiquity has bequeathed to us, it seems natural that it should soon have been translated and commented

upon. The official Aramaic translation, or Targum, of the Pentateuch is attributed to Onkelos and that of the

Prophets[60] to Jonathan ben Uzziel. Rashi constantly draws inspiration from both these works, and possibly

also from the Targumim to the Hagiographa, which are much more recent than the other two Targumim.

Sometimes he simply refers to them, sometimes he reproduces them, less frequently he remarks that they do

For the establishment of the text Rashi scrupulously follows the Massorah, the "Scriptural Statistics," the

work of scholars who lived in the period between the seventh and the tenth century, and who assured the

integrity of the Bible by counting the number of verses in each book and the number of times each word,

phrase, or expression recurs. The Massorah soon came to have great authority; and many scholars, such as R.

Gershom, for example, copied it with their own hands in order to have a correct and carefully made text of

the Bible. The Massorah was Rashi's constant guide. From a calculation made, of the number of times he

transgressed its rules, the infractions do not appear to be numerous, and sometimes they seem to have been

involuntary. As a consequence, variants from the text of the Bible are extremely rare in Rashi, and the

copyists eliminated them entirely. In general at his time the text was definitely established to the minutest

details, and variants, if there were any, were due to blunders of the copyists. Rashi, who probably carefully

It is to the Massoretes that some attribute the accents which serve to mark at once the punctuation and the

accentuation of the Biblical text. Rashi naturally conformed to this system of accentuation, and if he departed

But the two great sources upon which Rashi drew for his exegesis were the Talmudic and the Midrashic

literature, with their two methods of interpreting the Scriptures. As a knowledge of these two methods is

indispensable to an understanding of Rashi's exegesis, I will give some pages from the work of a recent

French exegete, L. Wogue, who presents an excellent characterization of them in his Histoire de la Bible et

From very ancient times the Pentateuch and certain chapters of the Prophets were read or translated in the

synagogue every Saturday. Accordingly, the interpretation of the Law could not be slavishly literal.

Now the general character of Judaism had not changed perceptibly during ten centuries. In the eleventh

century the Jews had the same needs as in the first, and the same method of satisfying their needs. They

found it quite natural to bring their ideas into agreement with the Bible or, rather, they did so unconsciously

and to twist the text from its natural meaning, so as to ascribe to the Biblical authors their own ideas and

Yet, however great the favor attaching to this method, the Peshat was never entirely deprived of its rights. It

was even destined to soar high into prominence. The appearance of the Karaites (eighth century), who

rejected the Talmud and held exclusively to the Scriptures, brought into existence, either directly or

indirectly, a rational, independent method of exegesis, though the influence of this sect upon the development

of Biblical studies has been grossly magnified. It was the celebrated Saadia (892942) who by his translation

of, and commentary upon, the Bible opened up a new period in the history of exegesis, during which the

natural method was applied to the interpretation of Biblical texts. The productions of this period deserve a

commanding position in Jewish literature, as much for their intrinsic value as for their number.

While, however, in the countries of Arabic culture, natural exegesis made its way triumphantly, in the

countries of Christian Europe, it freed itself from the traditional Midrash only with difficulty. Moreover,

Derash to carry a Jewish term into an alien field was the method always employed by the Christian

theologians. Throughout the medieval ages they adhered chiefly to a spiritual, allegoric, moral, and mystic

interpretation. In the employment of this method the literary, grammatical, philologic, and historical aspect is

perforce neglected. Nevertheless, even among Christian scholars the rational method found some worthy

The deplorable ease of the Midrashic method readily accounts for its vogue. The Haggadist is not compelled

to hold fast to his text, his imagination has free play, and is untrammelled [untrameled sic] by the

leadingstrings of grammar and good sense. The task of the exegete properly so called is quite different. He

may not find in the text anything which is not actually there. He must take heed of the context, of the

probable, and of the rules of the language. The exegete searches for the idea in the text; the Haggadist

It would be unjust to ignore the efforts of two of Rashi's predecessors, Moses haDarshan (first half of the

eleventh century) and Menahem ben Helbo, who prepared the way and rendered the task easier for him. The

principal work of Moses haDarshan, often cited by Rashi under the title of Yesod, "Foundation," is a

Haggadic and mystic commentary, giving, however, some place to questions of grammar and of the natural

construction of the text. As to Menahem ben Helbo, a certain number of his explanations and fragments of his

commentaries have been preserved; but Rashi probably knew him only through the intermediation of his

nephew Joseph Kara. Following the example of Moses haDarshan and possibly, also, of Menahem ben

Helbo, Rashi used both the Peshat and the Derash in his Biblical commentaries. "Rashi," says Berliner,

"employed an inbetween method, in which the Peshat and the Derash were easily united, owing to the care

he exercised, to choose from the one or the other only what most directly approximated the simple meaning

of the text. Rashi was free in his treatment of traditional legends, now transforming, now lengthening, now

This opinion is comprehensive; but it is necessary to emphasize and differentiate.

As a rule, when the Midrash does no violence to the text, Rashi adopts its interpretation; and when there are

several Midrashic interpretations, he chooses the one that accords best with the simple sense; but he is

especially apt to fall back upon the Midrash when the passage does not offer any difficulties. On the contrary,

if the text cannot be brought into harmony with the Midrash, Rashi frankly declares that the Midrashic

interpretation is irreconcilable with the natural meaning or with the laws of grammar. He also rejects the

Midrashic interpretation if it does not conform to the context. "A passage," he said, "should be explained, not

detached from its setting, but according to the context." In other cases he says, "The real meaning of the verse

is different," and again, "This verse admits of a Midrashic interpretation, but I do not pretend to give any but

the natural meaning." Rashi was fond of repeating the following Talmudic saying, which he elevated into a

principle: "A verse cannot escape its simple meaning, its natural acceptation." Rashi, then, cherished a real

predilection for rational and literal exegesis, but when he could not find a satisfactory explanation according

to this method, or when tradition offered one, he resigned himself to the Haggadic method, saying: "This

verse requires an explanation according to the Midrash, and it cannot be explained in any other way."

A few quotations will facilitate the comprehension of this characteristic method.

In the beginning]. R. Isaac[63] says: The Law ought to have begun with the rule enjoining the celebration of

Passover, which is the first of the Mosaic precepts. But God "showed his people the power of His works, that

He may give them the heritage of the heathen."[64] If the heathen nations say to Israel: You are robbers, for

you have seized the land of the seven nations (Canaanites), the Israelites can reply: The entire earth belongs

to God, who, having created it, disposes of it in favor of whomsoever it pleases Him. It pleased Him to give it

to the seven nations, and it pleased Him to take it away from them in order to give it to us. In the beginning,

etc. Bereshit bara]. This verse should be interpreted according to the Midrash, and it is in this way that our

rabbis apply it to the Torah as having existed "before His works of old,"[65] or to Israel, called "the

firstfruits of His increase."[66] But if one wishes to explain these words in their natural meaning, it is

necessary to observe the following method. In the beginning of the creation of the heaven and the earth, when

the earth was confusion and chaos, God said: "Let there be light." This verse does not set forth the order of

the creation. If it did, the word barishona (Bet Resh Alef Shin Nun He) would have been necessary, whereas

the word reshit (Resh Alef Shin Yod Tav) is always in the construct, as in Jer. xxvii. 1, Gen. x. 10, Deut. xviii.

4;[67] likewise bara (Bet Resh Alef) must here be taken as an infinitive (Bet Resh Alef with shin dot) ; the

same construction occurs in Hosea i. 2. Shall we assert that the verse intends to convey that such a thing was

created before another, but that it is elliptical (just as ellipses occur in Job iii. 10, Is. viii. 4, Amos vi. 12, Is.

xlvi. 10)? But this difficulty arises: that which existed first were the waters, since the following verse says,

that "the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters," and since the text did not previously speak of the

Rashi's exegesis is a bit complicated, because his beliefs prevented him from realizing that the narrative of

Genesis presupposes a primordial chaos; but his explanations are ingenious, and do away with other

difficulties. They have been propounded again as original explanations by modern commentators, such as

Ewald, Bunsen, Schrader, Geiger, etc. Botticher even proposed the reading bara (Bet Resh Alef). I did not

give the preceding commentary in its entirety, because it is fairly long and, in this respect, not typical.

All these explanations are drawn from Talmudic (Sanhedrim 89b ) and Midrashic (Bereshit Rabba and

Tanhuma) sources. The meaning of the passage being clear, Rashi has recourse to Haggadic elaborations,

which, it must be admitted, are wholly charming. Rashi will be seen to be more original in his commentary

In the above the text calls only for the embellishments of the Haggadah. In the following passage from

If these citations did not suffice, his antiChristian polemics would furnish ample evidence of the wise use

Rashi made of the Peshat. The word polemics, perhaps, is not exact. Rashi does not make assaults upon

Christianity; he contents himself with showing that a verse which the Church has adopted for its own ends,

when rationally interpreted, has an entirely different meaning and application. Only to this extent can Rashi

be said to have written polemics against the Christians. However that may be, no other course is possible; for

the history of Adam and Eve or the blessing of Jacob cannot be explained, unless one takes a stand for or

against Christianity. It was not difficult to refute Christian doctrines; Rashi could easily dispose of the stupid

or extravagant inventions of Christian exegesis. Sometimes he does not name the adversaries against whom

he aimed; sometimes he openly says he has in view the Minim or "Sectaries," that is, the Christians. The

Church, it is well known, transformed chiefly the Psalms into predictions of Christianity. In order to ward off

such an interpretation and not to expose themselves to criticism, many Jewish exegetes gave up that

explanation of the Psalms by which they are held to be proclamations of the Messianic era, and would see in

them allusions only to historic facts. Rashi followed this tendency; and for this reason, perhaps, his

commentary on the Psalms is one of the most satisfying from a scientific point of view. For instance, he

formally states: "Our masters apply this passage to the Messiah; but in order to refute the Minim, it is better

One would wish that Rashi had on all occasions sought the simple and natural meaning of the Biblical text.

That he clothed the Song of Songs, in part at least, in a mantle of allegory, is excusable, since he was

authorized, nay, obliged, to do so by tradition. In the Proverbs this manner is less tolerable. The book is

essentially secular in character; but Rashi could not take it in this way. To him it was an allegory; and he

transformed this manual of practical wisdom into a prolonged conversation between the Torah and Israel.

Again, though Rashi discriminated among the Midrashim, and adopted only those that seemed reconcilable

with the natural meaning, his commentaries none the less resemble Haggadic compilations. This is true,

above all, of the Pentateuch. And if the Haggadah "so far as religion is concerned was based upon the oral

law, and from an esthetic point of view upon the apparent improprieties of the Divine word," it nevertheless

"serves as a pretext rather than a text for the flights, sometimes the caprice or digressions, of religious

thought."[84] Now, Rashi was so faithful to the spirit of the Midrash that he accepted without wincing the

most curious and shocking explanations, or, if he rejected them, it was not because he found fault with the

explanations themselves. Sometimes, when we see him balance the simple construction against the Midrashic

interpretation of the text, we are annoyed to feel how he is drawn in opposite directions by two tendencies.

We realize that in consequence his works suffer from a certain incoherence, or lack of equilibrium, that they

are uneven and mixed in character. To recognize that he paid tribute to the taste of the age, or yielded to the

attraction the Midrash exercised upon a soul of naive faith, is not sufficient, for in point of fact he pursued the

two methods at the same time, the method of literal and the method of free interpretation, seeming to have

considered them equally legitimate and fruitful of results. Often, it is true, he shakes off the authority of

tradition, and we naturally query why his good sense did not always assert itself, and free him from the

Now that we have formulated our grievance against Rashi, it is fair that we try to justify him by recalling the

The Midrashim, as I have said, have a double object, on the one hand, the exposition of legal and religious

practices, on the other hand, the exposition of the beliefs and hopes of religion. So far as the Halakic Midrash

is concerned, it was marvellously [marvelously sic] well adapted to the FrenchJewish intellect, penetrated as

it was by Talmudism. The study of the Talmud so completely filled the lives of the Jews that it was difficult

to break away from the rabbinical method. Rashi did not see in the Bible a literary or philosophic

masterpiece. Nor did he study it with the unprejudiced eyes of the scholar. He devoted himself to this

studyespecially of the Pentateuchwith only the one aim in view, that of finding the origin or the

explanation of civil and ritual laws, the basis or the indication of Talmudic precepts. Sometimes he kicked

against the pricks. When convinced that the rabbinical explanation did not agree with a sane exegesis, he

would place himself at variance with the Talmud for the sake of a rational interpretation. What more than this

can be expected? Nor need we think of him as the unwilling prisoner of rules and a victim of their tyranny.

On the contrary, he adapted himself to them perfectly, and believed that the Midrash could be made to

conform to its meaning without violence to the text. That he always had reason to believe so was denied by so

early a successor as his grandson Samuel ben Meir. Samuel insisted that one stand face to face with the

Scriptures and interpret them without paying heed and having recourse to any other work. This effort at

intellectual independence in which the grandson nearly always succeeded, the grandfather was often

incapable of making. In commenting upon the Talmud Rashi preserved his entire liberty, unrestrained by the

weight of any absolute authority; but in commenting on the Bible he felt himself bound by the Talmud and

the Midrash. Especially in regard to the Pentateuch, the Talmudic interpretation was unavoidable, because the

Pentateuch either explicitly or implicitly contains all legal prescriptions. In point of fact, in leaving the

Pentateuch and proceeding to other parts of the Bible, he gains in force because he gains in independence. He

no longer fears to confront "our sages" with the true explanation. For example, there is little Derash in the

From this commentary one realizes, I do not say the perfection, but the simplicity, Rashi could attain when he

was not obliged to discover in Scriptures allusions to laws or to beliefs foreign to the text. As Mendelssohn

said of him, "No one is comparable with him when he writes Peshat." Even though Rashi gave too much

space to the legal exegesis of the Talmud, Mendelssohn's example will make us more tolerant toward him

Moreover, the commentary on the Bible is not exactly a scholarly work; it is above all a devotional work,

written, as the Germans say, fur Schule und Haus, for the school and the family. The masses, to whom Rashi

addressed himself, were not so cultivated that he could confine himself to a purely grammatical exposition or

to bare exegesis. He had to introduce fascinating legends, subtle deductions, ingenious comparisons. The

Bible was studied, not so much for its own sake, as for the fact that it was the textbook of morality, the

foundation of belief, the source of all hopes. Every thought, every feeling bore an intimate relation to

Scriptures. The Midrash exercised an irresistible attraction upon simple, deeply devout souls. It appealed to

the heart as well as to the intelligence, and in vivid, attractive form set forth religious and moral truths.

Granted that success justifies everything, then the very method with which we reproach Rashi explains the

fact that he has had, and continues to have, thousands of readers. The progress of scientific exegesis has made

us aware of what we would now consider a serious mistake in method. We readily understand why Derash

plays so important a role in Rashi's commentaries, and to what requirements he responded; but that does not

make us any more content with his method. To turn from Rashi to a more general consideration of the

Midrashic exegesis, we also understand its long continuance, though we do not deprecate it less, because it is

In spite of all, however, the use of the Derash must be considered a virtue in Rashi. Writing before the author

of the Yalkut Shimeoni,[89] he revealed to his contemporaries, among whom not only the masses are to be

included, but, owing to the rarity of books, scholars as well, a vast number of legends and traditions, which

have entered into the very being of the people, and have been adopted as their own. Rashi not only

popularized numerous Midrashim, but he also preserved a number the sources of which are no longer extant,

and which without him would be unknown. This Biblical commentary is thus the store house of Midrashic

literature, the aftermath of that luxuriant growth whose latest products ripened in the eighth, ninth, and even

It is hardly proper, then, to be unduly severe in our judgment of Rashi's work. In fact, why insist on his faults,

since he himself recognized the imperfections of his work, and would have bettered them if he had had the

It seems, therefore, that Rashi only gradually, as the result of experience and discussion, attained to a full

consciousness of the requirements of a sound exegesis and the duties of a Biblical commentator. What the

grandfather had not been able to do was accomplished by the grandson. The commentary of Samuel ben Meir

realized Rashi's resolutions. Though Rashi may not have been irreproachable as a commentator, he at least

pointed out the way, and his successors, enlightened by his example, could elaborate his method and surpass

it, but only with the means with which he provided them. We must take into account that he was almost an

originator, and we readily overlook many faults and flaws in remembering that he was the first to prepare the

Grammar and lexicography are the two bases of exegesis. Rashi was as clever a grammarian as was possible

in his time and in his country. At all events he was not of the same opinion as the Pope, who rebuked the

Archbishop of Vienna for having taught grammar in his schools, because, he said, it seemed to him rules of

grammar were not worthy the Sacred Text, and it was unfitting to subject the language of Holy Scriptures to

these rules. Rashi in his explanations pays regard to the laws of language, and in both his Talmudic and

Biblical commentaries, he frequently formulates scientific laws, or, it might be said, empiric rules, regarding,

for instance, distinctions in the usage of words indicated by the position of the accent, different meanings of

the same particle, certain vowel changes, and so on. Thus, we have been able to construct a grammar of

Nevertheless, in this regard, a wide gap separates the commentaries of Rashi and the works of the Spanish

school of exegetes, which shone with such lustre [luster sic] in that epoch. Under the influence and stimulus

of the Arabs, scientific studies took an upward flight among the Jews of Moslem Spain. The Midrash was

abandoned to the preachers, while the scholars cultivated the Hebrew language and literature with fruitful

results. In France, on the contrary, though rabbinical studies were already flourishing, the same is not true of

philological studies, which were introduced into France only through the influence of the Spaniards. French

scholars soon came to know the works, written in Hebrew, of Menahem ben Saruk and Dunash ben

Labrat,[91] and Rashi availed himself of them frequently, and not always uncritically. Thus, like them, he

distinguishes triliteral, biliteral, and even uniliteral roots; but contrary to them, he maintains that contracted

and quiescent verbs are triliteral and not biliteral. Unfortunately, he could have no knowledge of the more

important works of Hayyoudj, "father of grammarians," and of Ibn Djanah, who carried the study of Hebrew

to a perfection surpassed only by the moderns;[92] for these works were written in Arabic, and the

translations into Hebrew, made by the scholars of Southern France, did not appear until the twelfth and

thirteenth centuries. Though the Spanish Jews did not yet cultivate the allegoric and mystic exegesis, their

philosophic sense was rather refined and they did not always approach the study of the Bible without seeking

something not clearly expressed in the text, without arrierepensee so to speak. Rashi's exegesis was more

Moreover, even if Rashi was not in complete possession of grammatical rules, he had perfectly mastered the

spirit of the Hebrew language. Like the Spaniards, he had that very fine understanding for the genius of the

language which arises from persevering study, from constant occupation with its literature. We have cited the

sources upon which he drew; it would be unjust not to remark that he made original investigations. For

example (and the examples might be multiplied) apropos of a difficult passage in Ezekiel, he asserted that he

had drawn the explanation from inner stores, and had been guided only by Divine inspiration a formula

borrowed from the Geonim. He was frequently consulted in regard to the meaning of Biblical passages, and

one response has been preserved, that given to the scholars of Auxerre when they asked for an explanation of

several chapters of the Prophets. This fact shows that the Jews gave themselves up with ardor to the study of

the Bible, men of education making it their duty to copy the Bible with the most scrupulous care and

according to the best models, to the number of which they thus made additions. Among these copies are the

ones made by Gershom, by Joseph Tob Elem, and by Menahem of Joigny. The Jews were almost the only

persons versed in the Bible. I have mentioned how much the Church feared the sight of the Bible in the hands

of the common people, and in clerical circles an absolutely antiscientific spirit reigned in regard to these

matters. It was the triumph of symbolism, allegory, and docetism. All the less likely, then, were they to know

Hebrew. An exception was the monk Sigebert de Gemblours, a teacher at Metz in the last quarter of the

eleventh century, who maintained relations with Jewish scholars. He is said to have known Hebrew.

Rashi's thorough knowledge of Hebrew enabled him to depend upon his memory for quoting the appropriate

verses, and in all his citations there is scarcely a mistake, natural though an error would have been in quoting

from memory. Distinguishing between the Hebrew of the Bible and that of the Talmud, he sees in the Hebrew

of the Mishnah a transition between the two. Often, for the purpose of explaining a word in the Bible, he has

recourse to Talmudic Hebrew or to the Aramaic. He pays careful attention to the precise meaning of words

and to distinctions among synonyms, and he had perception for delicate shading in syntax and vocabulary.

Owing to this thorough knowledge of Hebrew he readily obtained insight into the true sense of the text. By

subjecting the thought of the Holy Scriptures to a simple and entirely rational examination, he not seldom

succeeds in determining it. Thus, as it were by divination, he lighted upon the meaning of numerous Biblical

passages. A long list might be made of explanations misunderstood by his successors, and revived,

consciously or unconsciously, by modern exegetes. An illustration in point is his explanation of the first verse

of Genesis, quoted above. Long before such Biblical criticism had become current it was he who said that the

"servant of God" mentioned in certain chapters of the second part of Isaiah represents the people of Israel.

Needless to say Rashi never tampers with the text. At most, as is the case with Ibn Djanah, he says that a

letter is missing or is superfluous. Sometimes, too, he changes the order of the words. Neither copyists'

mistakes nor grammatical anomalies existed for him. Yet he believed in all sincerity that the ancient sages

could have corrected certain Biblical texts to remove from them a meaning startling or derogatory when

Rashi wholly ignored what modern criticism calls the Introduction to the Scriptures, that is to say, the study

of the Bible and the books of which it is composed from the point of view of their origin, their value, and the

changes they have undergone. But rarely, here and there in his commentaries, does one find any references to

the formation of the canon. To give an example showing how he justified a classification of the Hagiographa

given by a Talmudic text and disagreeing with the present classification: Ruth comes first, because it belongs

to the period of the Judges; Job follows, because he lived at the time of the Queen of Sheba; then come the

three books of Solomon, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, both gnomic works, and the Song of Songs, written in

Solomon's old age; Lamentations, Daniel, Esther, Ezra (comprising the present Nehemiah), and Chronicles

are likewise placed in chronological order. In the same passage of the Talmud the question is put as to why

the redaction of the prophecies of Isaiah is attributed to King Hezekiah and his academy. Rashi explained that

the prophets collected their speeches only a short time before their death, and Isaiah having died a violent

Still less need one expect to find in Rashi modern exegesis, that criticism which applies to Scriptures an

investigation entirely independent of extraneous considerations, such as is brought to bear upon purely human

works. Rashi's candid soul was never grazed by the slightest doubt of the authenticity of a Biblical passage.

We can admire the genial divinations of an Abraham Ibn Ezra, but we also owe respect to that sincere faith of

Rashi which was incapable of suspecting the testimony of tradition and the axioms of religion.

Ibn Ezra[93] and Rashi present the most vivid contrast. Though Ibn Ezra was openminded and

clearsighted, he was restless and troubled. He led an adventurous existence, because his character was

adventurous. Rashi's spirit was calm, without morbid curiosity, leaning easily upon the support of traditional

religion, frank, throughout his life as free from the shadows of doubt as the soul of a child. Ibn Ezra had run

the scientific gamut of his time, but he also dipped into mysticism, astrology, arithmolatry, even magic.

Rashi, on the contrary, was not acquainted with the profane sciences, and so was kept from their oddities.

With his clear, sure intelligence he penetrated to the bottom of the text without bringing it into agreement

with views foreign to it. But the characteristic which distinguishes him above all others from Ibn Ezra is the

frankness of his nature. He never seemed desirous of knowing 'what he did not know, nor of believing what

he did not believe. Finally, and in the regard that specially interests us, Ibn Ezra, who belonged to the school

of Arabic philosophers and scholars, who knew the Spanish grammarians, and was their inheritor, always

employed the Peshat that is, when he was not biassed by his philosophic ideas. In this case he saw the true

meaning of the text, perhaps more clearly than any other Jewish commentator. Rashi did not possess the same

scientific resources. He knew only the Talmud and the Midrash, and believed that all science was included in

them. Moreover, though he stated in so many words his preference for a literal and natural interpretation of

There is one characteristic of Rashi's Bible commentaries which I have already touched upon, but to which it

is well to revert by way of conclusion, since it makes the final impression upon a student of the

commentaries. I refer to a certain intimacy or informality of the work, a certain easy way of taking things.

The author used no method. Now he explains the text simply and naturally; now he enjoys adorning it with

fanciful embellishments. One would say of him, as of many an author of the Talmud, that in writing his work

he rested from his Talmudic studies; and one seems to hear in these unceremonious conversations, these

unpretentious homilies, the same note. that even in the present day is sometimes struck in synagogues on

Saturday afternoons. What clearly shows that Rashi unbent a little in composing his Biblical commentaries

are the flashes of wit and humor lighting them, the display of his native grace of character, his smiling

geniality. If he yielded some credence to the most naive inventions, this does not mean that he was always

and entirely their dupe. They simply gave him the utmost delight. He did not refrain from piquant allusions;

and the commentary on the Pentateuch presents a number of pleasantries, some of which are a bit

highlyspiced for modern taste. Fundamentally, they are a heritage of the old Midrashic spirit grafted upon

the gaiety of "mischievous and fine Champagne," as Michelet said. Assuredly, there were hours in which

good humor reigned over master and pupils, and we seem to see the smile that accompanied the witty sallies,

and the radiance of that kindly charm which illuminated the dry juridic discussions. All this forms an

attractive whole, and everyone may feel the attraction; for the commentaries on the Bible, which can be read

with pleasure and without mental fatigue, are intelligible to persons of most mediocre mind and cultivation.

The words of a certain French critic upon another writer of Champagne, La Fontaine, might be applied to

Rashi, though a comparison between a poet and a commentator may not be pressed to the utmost. "He is the

milk of our early years, the bread of the adult, the last meal of the old man. He is the familiar genius of every

For many centuries the Biblical commentaries held a position and still hold it similar to that of La

Fontaine's Fables. Few works have ever been copied, printed, and commented upon to the same extent.

Immediately upon their appearance, they became popular in the strongest sense of the word. They cast into

the shade the work of his disciples, which according to modern judgment are superior. Preachers introduced

some commentaries of his into their sermons, and made his words the subject of their instruction; and Rashi

was taught even to the children. The mass of readers assimilated the Halakic and Haggadic elements. Those

who were not students, through Rashi got a smattering of a literature that would otherwise have been

inaccessible to them; and the commentaries threw into circulation a large number of legends, which became

the common property of the Jews. Rashi's expressions and phrases entered into current speech, especially

those happy formulas which impress themselves on the memory. His commentary is printed in all the

rabbinical Bibles; it has become to the Jews inseparable from the text, and even Mendelssohn's commentary,

which has all of Rashi's good qualities and none of his faults, did not succeed in eclipsing it. In short, it is a

The commentaries on the Bible, especially those on the Pentateuch, constitute a work for general reading and

for devotion as well as for scientific study. Their general scope explains both their excellencies and their

defects. On the other hand, the commentary on the Talmud is an academic work. It originated in the school of

Rashi, and was elaborated there during a long time. The one is a popular work for the use of the masses, the

other, a learned treatise for the use of students. The explanation of the Scriptures was written for the benefit

of the faithful in popular, attractive, and comprehensible form; the explanation of the Talmud constituted

matter for serious study in the academies. Or, rather, after the long, exhaustive, and often dryasdust

Talmudic discussion, the master took pleasure in interrupting his instruction in the school to give his

This is the reason why the Talmudic commentaries,[94] which are, as it were, the summingup of Rashi's

teachings, of his own studies, and of the observations of his pupils, have a more mature, more thoughtful

character than the Biblical commentaries. They undoubtedly represent a greater amount of labor. It seems that

Rashi himself made two or three recensions of his commentary, at least for many of the Talmudic treatises.

Testimony to this fact is given by the variations of certain passages in the extant text and that cited by the

ancient authors, notably the Tossafists. Moreover, the Tossafists explicitly mention corrections made by

Rashi in his own work. The query naturally arises whether the corrections indicate that Rashi worked the

entire commentary over and over again. The answer is no; for certain treatises remained incomplete, and

others seem never to have been begun. Presumably, then, Rashi revised a treatise according to the needs of

the occasion, as, for instance, when it came under his eyes in the course of instruction. However that may be,

the work that we now possess is a mixture of the first and the last recension, though we cannot always tell

Another fact explains the difference I have pointed out between the Biblical and the Talmudic commentaries.

For the Biblical commentaries there had been no precedent, and if they possess the merit of originality, they

also illustrate the errors of a man who tries his powers in a field of work devoid of all tradition. For the

Talmudic commentaries, on the contrary, models were not lacking. The example of Gershom was sufficiently

notable to evoke imitation, though his work was not so complete as to discourage it. We must not forget

Rashi's predecessors because he eclipsed them. This would be contrary to his intentions, since he frequently

cites them, rendering value in return for value received. In fact, he knew well how to use their works to

advantage. He submitted them to a judicial and minute examination, collecting all the material he needed

furnished by the Geonim as well as by his immediate masters. It would be as inexact to assert that he only

made a resume of their works as to say that he worked along entirely original lines and relied solely upon his

own resources. If we could compare his commentaries with previous commentaries (for some this

comparison has been made), we should be forced into the admission that his part is smaller than one would

suppose. The best proof of this fact is that the usual basis of his commentary for each treatise was the

explanation of the master under whom he had studied it. He often cites the writings of his masters, to which

he gives the title Yesod, "Foundation," probably either collections made by the teachers themselves or

notebooks edited by their pupils. As a result of the love of brevity which is one of Rashi's marked

characteristics, he does not quote in its entirety the source upon which he draws, but more frequently

I must hasten to add that the Talmudic commentaries of Rashi's masters were inadequate, and did not meet all

needs. We can judge of the lacunae in them both from the commentaries that have been preserved and from

the criticisms which Rashi frequently added as an accompaniment to his citations. Sometimes the

commentaries were too diffuse, sometimes too concise; their language was obscure and awkward; no stress

was laid upon explaining all details, and the commentaries themselves stood in need of explanation; they

addressed themselves to accomplished Talmudists rather than to students. Rashi's commentaries, on the

contrary, could be understood by men of small learninghence their influence and popularity. Moreover, the

commentaries of his masters often contradicted one another, coming as they did from scholars who did not

shrink from discussion. Rashi wished to put an end to these debates and introduce some unity into rabbinical

tradition, and generally his purpose in refraining from a quotation of his predecessors was exactly to avoid an

opening into the field of controversy. Finally, their commentaries, it seems, were not comprehensive; they

bore upon only one or several treatises; whereas Rashi's bore on all or nearly all the treatises of the

Rashi availed himself so little of the work of his masters that he began by establishing a correct text of the

Talmud and subjecting it to a severe revision. The mistakes of his predecessors oftenest arose from the

faultiness of the texts, marred by ignorant copyists or presumptuous readers. What is more, the use to which

the Talmud was put in the academies and the discussions to which it gave rise, far from sheltering it from

alterations made by way of correction, modified it in every conceivable fashion, according to the views of the

chiefs of the schools. Like every book in circulation, the Talmud was exposed to the worst changes, and this

all the more readily, because at that time no one had a notion of what we call respect for the text, for the idea

of the author. As rigidly as the text of the Bible was maintained intact in the very minutest details, so lax was

the treatment of the Talmud, which was at the mercy of individual whim. Naturally, the less scrupulous and

less clearsighted allowed themselves the most emendations. Accordingly, Rabbenu Gershom felt called upon

to put a severe restriction upon such liberties. Though he succeeded in moderating the evil, it could not be

suppressed retroactively. Rashi realized that corrections made wittingly were indispensable, and that it was

necessary to clear the Talmudic forest of entangling briers. Moreover, as we learn from Rashi himself,

Gershom had already undertaken the task. Rashi also tells us that he had Gershom's autograph manuscript

before him, not to mention other copies he was consulting and collating. Further testimony, apart from this

internal evidence, is provided by Rashi's references to texts parallel to the Talmud, among them the Tosefta.

Sometimes he records two readings without giving either the preference, though as a rule the reasoning or the

context shows that he leans one way or the other, so that his alterations, which are usually correct, do not

necessarily represent the early text. When Rashi has good cause for deciding a point in a certain way, he does

not pay attention to possible errors or contradictions on the part of the Talmudists. In other words, though his

Rashi exercised this criticism of the text to a wide extent, yet prudently. I have already mentioned what Isaac

of Vienna said concerning the numerous erasures that covered an autograph manuscript of his.[96] Many

readings that Rashi rejected might have been kept in fact they sometimes were kept by force of finesse

and subtlety. His method affords a striking contrast to that of the Talmudist Hananel,[97] who either

eliminates the phrases unacceptable to him or preserves them only by doing violence to the sense. Rashi, on

the contrary, compared the different versions of difficult or suspicious passages and prefers the one not

requiring a subtle explanation. It is only when no reading satisfies him that he assumes an interpolation or an

error, in this event frequently resorting to the Responsa of the Geonim. Needless to say, he also paid heed to

the revision of Gershom; but since he deemed that Gershom had himself preserved faulty readings, he took

up the work again, despite Gershom's prohibition. He realized that this careful and detailed critical revision of

his predecessor, however ungrateful the soil might appear, was nevertheless fertile ground, and might serve

He acquitted himself of the task with such success that his has become the official text, the "Vulgate," of the

Talmud. In fact, his disciples inserted into the body of the Gemara the greater part of his corrections or

restitutions (but not all; and one does not always comprehend the reasons for their choice), which have now

become an integral part of the text. Thus a single, definite, and official text was established a thing of great

From what I have already said, the reader can gather how individual was Rashi's method. The foundation for

his commentaries, it is true, was provided by tradition and by the instruction he received from his masters.

But over and above the circumstance that he preserved only what seemed fitting to him, is the fact that value

attached rather to the setting given the material than to the material itself. Herein resides Rashi's merit and

the merit is great. He was occupied not so much in extracting from the discussion of the Talmud the essential

ideas, the principles indicating rules of practice, as in rendering the discussion comprehensible both in its

entirety and in its details. He wrote a grammatical commentary which provides the exact meaning, not only of

the opinions set forth, but also of the phrases and expressions employed. A Jewish scholar of our day, I. H.

Weiss, who has accomplished much toward acclimatizing the scientific study of the Talmud in Eastern

Europe, justly remarked and what he says is a lesson to the rabbis of his country:

He does this with a sure touch, and the precision of his explanations is all the more remarkable as he did not

know whatever one may say to the contrary the Talmudic lexicon of Nathan ben Jehiel, of Rome, which

was not brought to a conclusion until four years after Rashi's death. It is a favorite trick of legend to establish

relations between illustrious contemporaries, especially when their activities were exercised in the same field,

and tradition has made Rashi the pupil of Nathan. The idea of such a relationship, however, is purely

Rashi carried the same spirit of exactness and precision into the whole of this work qualities indispensable

The difficulty presented by the obscurity of the style is increased by allusions to facts and customs which are

no longer known and cannot always be guessed at. Now, thanks to Rashi's commentary, a reader possessing a

knowledge of the elements of the language and some slight knowledge of Jewish law, can decipher it without

Rarely superficial, Rashi explains the text simply yet thoroughly. He sifts his matter to the bottom. His

reasoning is free from subtleties and violations of the sense. This characteristic comes out in bold relief when

we compare Rashi with his disciples, the Tossafists, who carry their niceties to an excess. It would be wrong

to hold Rashi responsible for the abuse later made of controversy; while, on the other hand, praise is owing to

him for the happy efforts he made to unravel the texts, not only for the purpose of explaining their meaning,

but also to indicate possible objections and reply to them in a few words. One must marvel at the clearsighted

intelligence, the sureness, the mastery with which Rashi conveys the gist of a discussion as well as the value

of the details, easily taking up each link in the chain of question and answer, pruning away superfluities, but

not recoiling before necessary supplementary developments. In addition, rather than resort to forced

explanations, he did not hesitate to avow that certain passages puzzled him, or that his knowledge was

To determine the meaning of a text, Rashi frequently referred to parallel passages, contained not only in the

Gemara itself, but also in other collections, such as the Tosefta, or the Halakic Midrashim.[99] Sometimes the

Gemara cites them, or refers to them, at other times it makes no allusion whatsoever to them. In the latter

case, it may be stated, Rashi, even when he does not say so explicitly, himself found the text for comparison

Moreover, on occasion, he points out general rules to which he conforms, some of them indicated in the

Talmud itself, others provided by the Geonim, and others again evolved by himself in the course of his

studies. Those who are competent to judge admire the precision with which he lays down these principles. By

combining them, an excellent, although very incomplete, Talmudic methodology might be drawn up.

Some examples will give a better idea than a mere description of Rashi's method. I will separate his

commentary from the text of the Gemara by square brackets, so as to show how he inserts his commentary,

The following passages deal with the proclamation of the new moon, made by the supreme tribunal, upon the

The following passage deals with the Lulab, which is used at the celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles, and

From these two citations it is evident that Rashi does not shrink from complicated explanations, and that he

does not comment on the easy passages. In the following quotation, the discussion is somewhat more difficult

What one least expects to find in a Talmudist is historic veracity. Yet it is not lacking in Rashi, either because

he was guided by ancient and authentic traditions, or because he was inspired by his clear sightedness, or

but this is apt to have been the case less frequently because he was well served by his power of divination.

Rashi took good care not to confound the different generations of Tannaim and Amoraim, or the different

rabbis in each. He knew the biographies of all of them, the countries of their birth, their masters and disciples,

the period and the scene of their activity. Such knowledge was necessary not only in order to grasp the

meaning of certain passages, but also in order to decide which opinion was final and had the force of law.

Rashi also tried to understand, and in turn render comprehensible, the customs and the bygone institutions to

which the Talmud alludes. He gave information concerning the composition of the Mishnah and the Gemara,

and the relations of the Mishnahs and the Baraitas. Because it contains all these data, Rashi's commentary is

still a very valuable historical document, and Jewish historians of our days continue frequently to invoke its

Yet in spite of this scattered information, the commentary is marked by certain deficiencies which indicate a

deficiency in his mental makeup. When he explains an historical passage of the Talmud, he is incapable of

criticising [criticizing sic] it. Apart from the fact that he would not believe legend to be legend, nor the

Gemara capable of mistakes, he had neither the knowledge nor the scientific culture requisite for an historian.

To be convinced of this, it is necessary to read only the following passage, in which the Talmud

characteristically relates the final events before the downfall of the Jewish State. As before, I reproduce the

Gemara along with the commentary of Rashi; but in translating the Gemara I anticipate what Rashi says. It

must be borne in mind that Rashi explains in Hebrew in rabbinical Hebrew text written in Aramaic.

This passage is less historic than legendary in character; it forms part of the Haggadic element of the Talmud,

In the explanation of the Haggadah Rashi has preserved its method, so wise, yet so simple. Others have

attempted to be more profound in interpreting it allegorically. Rashi, with his fund of common sense, was

nearer to the truth. His conception of the naive tales and beliefs was in itself naive. Moreover, before his time

it was the legislative part of the Talmud that received almost exclusive attention. The rabbis occupied

themselves with questions of practice and with making decisions, and they tried to unknot the entanglements

of the discussions for the sake of extracting the norm, the definitive law. This is the case with Hananel,

Rashi's predecessor, as well as with Alfasi,[113] Rashi's contemporary. Although, as we shall see, the French

rabbi had studied the Talmud for the sake of practical needs, he adopted, so to speak, a more disinterested

point of view. He did not pretend to write a manual of Talmudic law, but an uninterrupted running

commentary for the use of all who wanted to make a consecutive study of the Talmud.

In the treatise Baba Batra (73a), the Gemara having exhausted the few observations it had to present upon the

Mishnah, which speaks of the sail of a vessel and its rigging, falls back upon some popular narratives, "Tales

In conclusion I will give one more extract, from the last chapter of Sanhedrin (92b), which contains a vast

What has been said up to this point indicates the position taken by Rashi with regard to the Halakah. Unlike

Maimonides in his commentary of the Mishnah, he did not as a rule concern himself with the fixation of legal

principles and practice, or with the definite solution of questions under controversy. He confined himself to

his task of commentator and interpreter. The brevity he imposed upon himself made it an obligation not to

enter into long and detailed discussions; for he would have had to dispose of varying opinions and justify his

choice. He carried his principle to such an extent that it could be said of him, "Rashi is a commentator, he

But there are numerous exceptions to the rule. Often Rashi deems it necessary to state a definite solution,

either because it has been the subject of controversies on the part of his masters, or because it was difficult to

separate it from the rest of the discussion, or because it served as the point of departure for another

discussion. Finally, the explanation of such and such a passage of the Talmud presupposes the solution of a

question, unless the solution changes with the explanation of the passage. When the question is left in

suspense by the Talmud, Rashi usually determines it in the strictest sense; but when it receives contradictory

solutions, he either falls back upon analogous cases or adduces rules of Talmudic methodology. Often,

however, his conclusion is nothing else than a statement of the practice observed in his time.

In all these cases Rashi's authority carries great weight; so much so, in fact, as to overbalance that of Alfasi

and Maimonides. Frequent appeal was made to it by casuists of a later date, and it would have been invoked

still oftener had his Decisions been gathered together, like those of the Spanish and German rabbis, instead of

By reason of these and other qualities the Talmudic commentaries of Rashi without doubt outweigh his

Biblical commentaries. I should be inclined flatly to contradict the opinion ascribed to Jacob Tam, Rashi's

grandson: "So far as my grandfather's commentary on the Talmud is concerned, I might do as much, but it

would not be in my power to undertake his commentary upon the Pentateuch." The Biblical commentary is

not always absolutely sure and certain, and the defects are marked. The Talmudic commentary remains a

model and indispensable guide. Although numerous Biblical commentaries have been composed with Rashi's

as a standard and in order to replace it, no one has dared provide a substitute for his Talmudic commentary.

From an historical point of view, the value of the Talmudic commentary is no less great. At the same period,

in three countries, three works were composed which complemented one another and which came to form the

basis of Talmudic studies. At the time when Rashi commented on the Talmud, Nathan ben Jehiel[121]

composed the Talmudic lexicon, which is still used to a great extent, while Isaac Alfasi in his Halakot

codified all the Talmudic regulations. Of the three works the first was the most celebrated. The exaggerated

statement was made of Rashi, that "without him the Talmud would have remained a closed book."[122] And

Menahem ben Zerah[123] said: "There was no one so illuminating, and so concise as Rashi in the

commentary he wrote as if by Divine inspiration. Without him, the Babylonian Talmud would have been

forgotten in Israel." The echo of this enthusiastic opinion is heard in the words of the Hebrew scholar H. L.

Strack, a Christian, and the modern Jewish scholar A. Darmesteter. The one says: "Rashi wrote a commentary

which the Jews hold in extraordinarily high regard and which all must concede is of the greatest value."

Darmesteter wrote: "Suppress the commentary of Rashi, that masterwork of precision and clearness, and even

Can more be said? The commentary has become, in brief, The Commentary, the Commentary par excellence,

In the previous chapter we saw that Rashi, though chiefly concerned with the mere explanation of the

Talmud, nevertheless intrenched sometimes upon the domain of practice. It must not be forgotten that at that

epoch the life of the Jews was based upon, and directed by, rabbinical jurisprudence and discipline. The study

of the Talmud was taken up for the sake of finding in it rules for the daily conduct of existence. Apart from

certain questions purely theoretic in character and having no practical application, Talmudic studies, far from

being confined to the school, responded to the needs of life and were of real, vital interest. But since the

Talmud is not allcomprehensive, the rabbis in drawing inspiration from its rules, from precedents it had

already established, and from analogous instances contained in it, were justified in rendering decisions upon

new points arising out of circumstances as they occurred. Thus, measures are cited passed by Rashi upon the

payment of taxes, Christian wine, the Mezuzah, phylacteries, etc. These measures resulted not so much from

his own initiative as from the requests preferred to him by his disciples, or by other rabbis, or even by private

The Responsa addressed by rabbinical authorities to individuals or to communities who had submitted

difficult cases and questions to them for solution, constitute a special genus of postBiblical literature. Not to

mention their legislative value, how precious they are as documents in proof of the fact that no distances were

too long, no obstacles too great to prevent the people from obtaining the opinion of a scholar! They even sent

special messengers to him, when there were no favoring circumstances, such as a fair at the rabbi's place of

residence, or a journey to be undertaken thither for other reasons than the purpose of the consultation. Thus

lively relations were established among the Jews of the most widely separated countries; and an active

correspondence went on between scholars of Babylon, Northern Africa, Spain, France, Germany, and Italy.

The circle of Rashi's connections, however, was limited to France and Lorraine. His chief correspondents

were his teachers and their disciples.[124] It was only after Rashi's day, when communication between the

Christian and the Moslem worlds became more frequent, that rabbinical authorities were appealed to from all

Though his correspondents were not so widely scattered, the subjects touched upon by Rashi in his Responsa

are very varied in character. He was consulted on the meaning of a Biblical or a Talmudic passage, on the

text of the liturgy, on rules of grammar, on Biblical chronology, and, especially, on new cases arising in the

practice of religion. These Responsa, inspired, so to speak, by actualities, by the come and go of daily affairs,

introduce the reader to the material and intellectual life of the Jews of the time, besides furnishing interesting

One of the questions most frequently agitated regarded wine of the Gentiles, the drinking of which was

prohibited to the Jews because it was feared that the wine had been employed for idolatrous libations. Cases

of this kind turned up every day, because the Jews occupied themselves with viticulture[125] and maintained

constant communication with the Christians. Rashi showed himself rather liberal. Though, of course,

forbidding Jews to taste the wine, he permitted them to derive other enjoyment from it, the Christians not

being comparable to the pagans, since they observed the Noachian laws. Rashi's grandson, Samuel ben Meir,

explicitly states in Rashi's name that the laws set forth by the Talmud against the Gentiles do not apply to the

The brother of Samuel, Jacob Tam, tells us that Rashi forbade the payment of a tax by using a sum of money

left on deposit by a Christian. This decision, Jacob Tam adds, was intended to apply to the whole kingdom

and, in fact, was accepted throughout France. This testifies not only to the great authority Rashi enjoyed, but

also to the uprightness, the honesty of his character. Another of his qualities becomes apparent in a second

Responsum treating of the relations between Jews and Christians. They carried on trade with each other in

wheat and cattle. Now, the Mishnah forbids these transactions. "When this prohibition was promulgated,"

wrote Rashi, "the Jews all dwelt together and could carry on commerce with one another; but at present,

when we are a minority in the midst of our neighbors, we cannot conform to so disastrous a measure." Rashi,

it is therefore evident, knew how to take into account the needs of the moment, and accommodate rules to

Relations, then, between the Jews and their fellow citizens were cordial. The horizon seemed serene. But if

one looked closer, one could see the gathering clouds slowly encroaching upon the calm sky, clouds which

were soon to burst in a storm of bloody hate and murderous ferocity. Although the change came about

imperceptibly and the Jews enjoyed the calm preceding the tempest, despite this and despite themselves, they

entertained a smothered distrust of the Christians. For instance, they used ugly expressions to designate

objects the Christians venerated. The Christians responded in kind. The ecclesiastical works of the time are

full of insults and terms of opprobrium aimed at the Jews. If one reads the narrative of the Crusades, during

which the blood of innocent massacred Jews flowed in streams, one must perforce excuse, not so much real

hostility toward the Christians, as the employment of malicious expressions directed against their worship.

The feeling that existed was rather the heritage of tradition, the ancient rivalry of two sister religions, than

true animosity. As for tolerance, no such thing yet existed. It was difficult at that time for people to conceive

of benevolence and esteem for those who professed a different belief. The effect of the First Crusade upon the

inner life of the communities was to create anomalous situations within families, necessitating the

intervention of rabbinical authorities. The Responsa of Rashi dealing with martyrs and converts no doubt

sprang from these sad conditions. A woman, whose husband died during the persecution, married again

without having previously claimed her jointure from the heirs of her dead husband; but she wanted to insist

on her rights after having contracted the new union. Rashi, in a Responsum, the conclusions of which were

attacked after his death by several rabbis, declared that the claim of the woman was entitled to consideration.

The echo of the Crusades is heard in other instances. I have already spoken of the liberal, tolerant

attitude[126] assumed by Rashi in regard to the unfortunates who deserted the faith of their fathers in

appearance only, and sought refuge in that of their persecutors. He excused the hypocrisy of these weak

In general, so far as questions in regard to lending on interest, to giving testimony, and to marriage relations

were concerned, Rashi held the apostate to be the same as the Jew. He was once asked if the testimony of an

apostate was valid in law. "It is necessary," he replied "to distinguish in favor of those who follow the Jewish

law in secret and are not suspected of transgressing the religious precepts which the Christians oblige them to

transgress outwardly. At bottom they fear God. They weep and groan over the constraint put upon them, and

implore pardon of God. But if there is a suspicion that they committed transgressions without having been

forced to do so, even if they have repented with all their heart, and all their soul, and all their might, they

cannot bring evidence ex post facto concerning facts which they witnessed before they repented."

Rashi, then, was indulgent above all toward those who had been converted under the compulsion of violence,

and who sincerely regretted their involuntary or imposed apostasy. On one occasion, he was asked if the wine

belonging to such unfortunates should be forbidden, though they had proved their return to the Jewish faith

by a long period of penitence. Rashi replied: "Let us be careful not to take measures for isolating them and

thereby wounding them. Their defection was made under the menace of the sword, and they hastened to

return from their wanderings." Elsewhere Rashi objects to recalling to them their momentary infidelity. A

young girl was married while she and her bridegroom were in the state of forced apostasy. Rashi declared the

union to be valid, for "even if a Jew becomes a convert voluntarily, the marriage he contracts is valid. All the

more is this true in the case of those who are converted by force, and whose heart always stays with God, and

especially, as in the present case, if they have escaped as soon as they could from the faith they embraced

Since internal union is the surest safeguard against persecution from without, Rashi earnestly exhorted his

brethren to shun intestine strife. "Apply yourselves to the cultivation of peace," he once wrote. "See how your

neighbors are troubled by the greatest evils and how the Christians delight in them. Concord will be your

buckler against envy and prevent it from dominating you." In a community, doubtless that of Chalons

surSaone, in Burgundy,[127] there were two families that quarrelled [quarreled sic] continually. The

community had intervened to stop the strife, but one of the two families declared in advance that it would not

submit to its decision. A member of the other family, irritated, reproached one of his enemies with having

been baptized. Now Rabbenu Gershom, under penalty of excommunication, had forbidden people to recall

his apostasy to a converted Jew. Rashi was asked to remove this prohibition; but he declined, not wishing to

intervene in the internal administration of a strange community. "What am I that I should consider myself an

authority in other places? . . . . I am a man of little importance, and my hands are feeble, like those of an

orphan. If I were in the midst of you, I would join with you in annulling the interdiction." From this it is

evident that the strongest weapon of the rabbinical authorities against the intractable was, as in the Church,

excommunication; but that sometimes individuals asserted, and even swore in advance, that they would not

yield to the decree against them. Rashi considered that this oath, being contrary to law, was null and void.

Rashi, guided by the same feelings, was pitiless in his condemnation of those who fomented trouble, who

sowed discord in families, sometimes in their own households. A man, after having made promise to a young

girl, refused to marry her and was upheld in his intrigues by a disciple of Rashi. Rashi displayed great

severity toward the faithless man for his treatment of the girl, and he was not sparing even in his denunciation

of the accomplice. Another man slandered his wife, declaring that she suffered from a loathsome disease, and

through his lying charges he obtained a divorce from her. But the truth came to light, and Rashi could not

find terms sufficiently scathing to denounce a man who had recourse to such base calumnies and sullied his

own hearth. "He is unworthy," Rashi wrote, "to belong to the race of Abraham, whose descendants are always

full of pity for the unfortunate; and all the more for a woman to whom one is bound in marriage. We see that

even those who do not believe in God respect the purity of the home, and here is a man who has conducted

himself so unworthily toward a daughter of our Heavenly Father." After indicating what course is to be

pursued in case of divorce, Rashi concluded: "But it would be better if this man were to make good his

mistake and take back his wife, so that God may take pity on him, and he may have the good fortune to build

The Responsa, providing us, as we have seen, with interesting information concerning Rashi's character, are

no less important for giving us knowledge of his legal and religious opinions. As a result of the poise of his

nature, and in the interest of order, he attached great importance to traditional usages and customs.

Innovations are dangerous, because they may foment trouble; to abide by custom, on the contrary, is the

surest guarantee of tranquillity [tranquility sic]. In casuistical questions not yet solved, he did not adopt as his

principle the one prevailing with so many rabbis, of rendering the strictest decision; on the contrary, in regard

to many matters, he was more liberal than his masters or his colleagues. Nevertheless, he congratulated those

whose interpretation in certain cases was more severe than his own. In his scrupulous piety, he observed

certain practices, although he refused to set them up as laws for others, since, one of his disciples tells us, he

did not wish to arrogate to himself the glory of instituting a rule for the future. He contented himself with

saying: "Blessed be he who does this." Since he stuck to the rigid observance of religion, and feared to open

the door to abuses, he advised his pupils not to give too much publicity to certain of his easy interpretations

If he did not approve of laxity, he had still less sympathy with the extreme piety bordering on folly of those

whom he called "crazy saints." Enemy to every exaggeration, he blamed those who, for example, imposed

upon themselves two consecutive fast days. Once when the Fast of Esther fell on a Thursday, a woman

applied to Rashi for advice. She told him she was compelled to accompany her mistress on a trip, and asked

him whether she might fast the next day. Rashi in his Responsum first recalled the fact that the Fast of Esther

was not mentioned either in the Bible or in the Talmud, and then declared that the over conscientious Jews

who fast on Friday in order to make a feast day follow close upon a fast day, deserve to be called fools who

Finally, although Rashi was very scrupulous in matters of religion, he was tolerant toward faults and failings

in others. Sinners and, as I have shown, even apostates found grace with him. He liked to repeat the Talmudic

saying to which, in generalizing it, he gave a new meaning, "An Israelite, even a sinful one, remains an

There is little to say concerning the style of Rashi's Responsa. In the setting forth and the discussion of the

questions under consideration, his usual qualities are present precision, clearness, soberness of judgment.

But the preambles sometimes a bit prolix are written after the fashion prevailing among the rabbis of the

time, in a complicated, pretentious style, often affecting the form of rhymed prose and always in a poetic

jargon. With this exception, the Responsa do not betray the least straining after effect, the least literary

refinement. The very fact that Rashi did not himself take the precaution to collect his Responsa, proves how

little he cared to make a show with them, though, it is true, the custom of gathering together one's Responsa

did not arise until later, originating in Spain, and passing on to Germany. As I shall immediately proceed to

show, it was Rashi's disciples who collected the Responsa of their master and preserved them for us, at least

After having passed in review the works which are the result of Rashi's own labor and which have come

down to us in the shape in which they emerged from his hands, or nearly so, several works remain to be

described that present a double character; they did not spring directly from Rashi's pen, but were written by

his pupils under his guidance, or, at least, as the result of his inspiration and influence. They have reached us

in altered form, amplified, and sometimes improved, sometimes spoiled by various authors. The confusion

reigning in these works has contributed toward an inexact appreciation of their function. From the first they

were meant to be compilations, collections of rules, rather than works having a specified object.

To point out the fact once again, Rashi's pupils became his collaborators; and, it must be added, they

established a veritable cult of their master. They neglected nothing concerning him; they carefully noted and

piously recorded his slightest deed and gesture, on what day they had seen him, under what circumstances,

how he felt that day, and how he conducted himself at the table. When a case similar to some previous one

arose, they contented themselves with referring to the former and reproducing the discussion to which it had

It is to this veneration, bordering on religious devotion, that we owe the preservation of Rashi's Responsa and

Decisions. Some entered into the collections of the Babylonian Geonim, a fact which shows how highly

people regarded the man who was thus ranked with the greatest rabbinical authorities, but most of them

formed the basis of several independent works: the Sefer haPardes (Book of Paradise), the Sefer

haOrah (Book of Light?), the Sefer IssurweHeter (Book of Things Prohibited and Things Permitted),

and the Mahzor Vitry. The first work was edited at the beginning, the last, at the end, of the nineteenth

century, and part of the second was introduced into the first by the editor of the first. The whole of the second

has just been published by Mr. Solomon Buber. The third work, which offers many resemblances to the

Mahzor Vitry, is still in manuscript; but Mr. Buber has recently promised us its publication in the near future,

as well as a Siddur, or ritual, of Rashi, related to the Mahzor Vitry and to a Sefer haSedarim.

In all these collections it is sometimes difficult to determine what is Rashi's handiwork, or which of his pupils

is responsible for certain passages. The composition of the works is, in fact, original and merits brief

The Sefer haPardes, though commonly attributed to Rashi himself, cannot possibly have been his work,

since it contains rules, decisions, and Responsa made by several of his contemporaries, and even by some of

his successors. Among others are additions by Joseph Ibn Plat or his disciples (second half of the twelfth

century). But in respect of one of its constituent elements, it was a creation of Rashi's. It was formed, in fact,

by the fusion of two collections. The author of the one containing the customs of the three cities of Speyer,

Worms, and Mayence, must have been one of the Machirites; while the author of the other, comprising

The Sefer haPardes is a widelyread book, and it has been used, sometimes under other titles, by the

greater number of legal compilations made in France and Germany. It passed through various redactions, and

The Sefer haOrah, the redaction of which is sometimes attributed, though wrongly so, to Nathan haMachiri,

is a compilation of several works, which seem to have been written in Spain at the beginning of the

fourteenth century. It consists of two principal elements; the first, German in origin, is similar to the Pardes

now extant; the second is the work of the Spaniard, Judah ben Barzillai, of Barcelona (twelfth century). It is,

of course, in the first that one finds fragments of works which date back to the disciples of Rashi.

The Mahzor Vitry is a more or less homogeneous work. It contains rules of jurisprudence and of religious

practice, Responsa by Rashi, by his predecessors, and by his contemporaries, prayers and liturgic poems,

"Minor" Talmudic treatises, the whole divided into chapters following the yearly cycle, and bearing upon the

various circumstances of life. The work contains many additions due to Isaac ben Durbal, or Durbalo, who

visited the countries of Eastern Europe and was the disciple of Rabbenu Tam (about 1150). He is wrongly

considered to be the redactor of the Mahzor Vitry. The author of the work is, without doubt, Simhah ben

Samuel, of Vitry, a disciple of Rashi (about 1100), who availed himself, moreover, of the works of other

The Mahzor Vitry is of great importance not only for the historian of Rashi, but also for the historian of

Franco Jewish culture and literature at that time. The same may be said of the Sefer haPardes. Yet this

material must be used with the utmost caution; for it has come to us in a sad condition, disfigured by the

compilers and copyists, who introduced elements from various sources and different epochs. The original

works disappeared during the persecutions and autosdafe which followed one another in France and

These short analyses may give an idea of the collections not yet edited; for they all stand in relation one with

the other, and are in great part formed of the same elements and derived from the same material.

Almost immediately upon the birth of liturgical poetry in the time of the Geonim, an illustrious representative

arose in the person of Eleazar haKalir,[130] who came to exercise a profound influence upon his successors,

and in Rashi's day this poetry attained a high degree of development. That was the time when Jews, instead of

merely listening to the officiating minister, commenced to accompany him with their voices in antiphonal

Like most of the rabbis of his time, Rashi wrote liturgical poems, the number of which Zunz, with more or

less surety, places at seven. Three are still preserved in some rituals. According to Luria, Rashi composed

It is fair to question whether a Talmudist is fashioned to be a poet, and whether it is possible for love of

discussion and dialectics to accord with poetic sensibility and imagination. Indeed, the liturgical poetry of the

Jews of France and Germany has not the least artistic value. It shows neither concern for originality, nor

knowledge of composition, and the poets were strangers to the conception of art and beauty. Moreover, they

imposed upon themselves rather complicated rules, the most simple forms adopted being rhyme and acrostic.

Sometimes they accomplished veritable feats of mental gymnastics, whose merit resided in the mere fact that

a difficulty was overcome. Too often a play upon words or alliteration takes the place of inspiration, and

These defects disappear in a translation, which is all the more acceptable for the very reason that it does not

reproduce the vivid coloring of the original. The following, recited on the Fast of Gedaliah (az terem nimteju

(Alef Zayin, Mem Resh Final_Mem, Nun Mem Tav Het Vav)), may serve as an example. Rashi uses certain

Midrashim in it which describe the throne of God and the heavenly court. Such poetry as there is and there

is some is overlaid and submerged by the slow development of the thought and the painfully detailed

enumerations, strongly reminiscent of the Bible. It should be said that the language of Rashi is far simpler

In the first part of this poem the imagination displayed cannot be said to call forth admiration either by reason

of fertility or by reason of brilliance. Any ordinary student of the Talmud and the Midrash might have

produced it. Nevertheless Rashi awakens a certain sort of interest, it may even be said that he touches the

emotions, when he pours out all his sadness before God, or rather for his grief is impersonal the sadness

of the Jew, the humble sinner appealing to the mercy of God. When his feelings rise to their most solemn

pitch, their strong pulsations visible through the unaccustomed poetic garb, the cloak of learned allusions

drops of itself, and emotion is revealed under the strata of labored expressions. All the poems by Rashi

belong under the literary form called Selihot, penitential psalms, recited on fast days.

What has been said of the first specimen quoted applies equally to the next (Hashem Elohei Hatzevaot Bore

Baolionim (Yod Yod, Alef Lamed He Yod, He Tsadi Bet Alef Vav Tav, Bet Vav Resh Alef, Bet Ayin Lamed Yod

Vav Nun Yod Final_Mem)), for the eve of the Day of Atonement. It would have been more effective, had

The final specimen (tefilah lekadma (Tav Pe Lamed He, Lamed Qof Dalet Mem Final_Nun) is still more

pathetic in its tearful contrition. The last lines even rise to unusual beauty when they point down a shining

The uniformity and monotony of this poetry, it must be admitted, weary the reader. The author never goes

beyond a narrow circle of ideas, and general ideas at that. It is impossible to make out whether the allusions

are to contemporaneous events, the persecutions connected with the First Crusade, for instance, or whether

they refer to the ancient, traditional wrongs and sufferings. Nowhere is Rashi's poetry relieved by a touch of

personal bias. it cannot be denied, however, that the poems testify to a fund of sincerity and enthusiasm, and

that is noteworthy in a period of literary decadence, when it often happens that sincerity of sentiment fails by

a good deal to find sincere expression for itself. Esthetic inadequacy should by no means be taken as

synonymous with insincerity. Rashi proves, that without being an artist one can be swayed by emotion and

sway the emotions of others, particularly when the dominant feeling is sadness. "The prevailing characteristic

of Rashi's prayers," says Zunz, the first historian of synagogue poetry as well as the first biographer of Rashi,

"is profound sadness; all of them are filled with bitter plaints." Finally, if the Selihot by Rashi fall far short of

our idea and our ideal of poetry, they at least possess the interest attaching to all that relates to their illustrious

The preceding chapters show how voluminous and varied was Rashi's work. And yet we are far from

possessing everything he wrote; a number of texts have disappeared, perhaps are lost forever. But this fertility

is not Rashi's sole literary merit. If the excellence of a work is to be measured not only by its intrinsic value,

but also by its historical influence, by the scientific movement to which it has given the impulse, by the

literature which it has called into being, in short, by its general effect, no work should receive a higher

estimate than that of Rashi, for, it may be said without exaggeration, no other work was ever the occasion of

so much comment and discussion, and none exerted an influence so far reaching and enduring. From the

moment of their appearance his writings spread rapidly, and were read with enthusiasm. After profoundly

affecting his contemporaries, Rashi continued to guide the movement he had started. His influence upon

rabbinical literature is comparable only with that of Maimonides. Indeed, it was more wholesome than his.

The Talmudic codex established by Maimonides aimed at nothing less than to shut off the discussions and to

give the oral law firm, solid shape. Rashi, on the contrary, safeguarded the rights of the future, and gave his

successors full play. Again, not having introduced into his work philosophic speculations, he was shielded

against criticism, and his renown was therefore more immaculate than that of the author of the Mishneh

Rashi dominates the entire rabbinical movement in France and Germany. Generally, the influence of a writer

wanes from day to day; but as for Rashi's, it may he said to have increased by force of habit and as the result

of events, and to have broadened its sphere. Limited at first to French, Lotharingian, and German centres

[centers sic] of learning, it soon extended to the south of Europe, to Africa, and even to Asia, maintaining its

Since it is impossible to mention all the authors and works following and preceding Rashi, it must suffice to

point out some characteristic facts and indispensable names in order to bring into relief the vitality and

expansive force of his achievement, and to show how it has survived the ravages of time, and, what is more,

how it has overcome man's forgetfulness edax tempus, edacior homo. We shall see that Rashi directed the

course of 37 3 �the later development at the same time that he summed up in his work all that had

Finally, Rashi's influence was not confined either within the walls of the Jewries or within the frontiers of

It may be said without exaggeration that Rashi's Talmudic commentary renewed rabbinical studies in France

and in Germany. It propagated knowledge of the Talmud there and multiplied the academies. In fact, schools

were founded in all localities containing Jewish communities no matter how insignificant; and it is difficult

for us to obtain any idea of the number and importance of these "Faculties," scattered over the length and

breadth of Northern France, which thus became a very lively centre [center sic] of Jewish studies and the

chief theatre [theater sic] of the intellectual activity of the Occidental Jews. Its schools eclipsed those of the

What in the first instance contributed to the success of the movement begun by Rashi, is the fact that he

moulded [molded sic] numerous disciples in this more fortunate than Maimonides, who was unable to

found a school and who sowed in unploughed land. It was only with the lapse of time that his work little by

little made its way, while Rashi through his teaching exerted an absolutely direct and, as it were, living

influence. Rashi's authority was such that Troyes became the chief centre [center sic] of studies. Many pupils

flocked to it and there composed important works, casting into sure and permanent form the intellectual

wealth they had gathered while with their master. They put the finishing touches to his work and labored to

I have already spoken of Simhah ben Samuel de Vitry, author of the liturgical and ritual collection, Mahzor

Vitry.[132] Among other disciples not so well known are Mattathias ben Moses, 3n 3 �of Paris,

Samuel ben Perigoros, Joseph ben Judah, and Jacob ben Simson (1123), who lived at Paris or Falaise and

wrote Responsa at the dictation of his master, and, besides commentaries, a Mahzor, and an astronomic work.

Judah ben Abraham, of Paris, aided by suggestions from his master, wrote a ceremonial for the Passover. In

carrying out his task, he availed himself of the notes of his older fellow disciple Simhah, and his collaborator

was Shemaiah, who had already worked on Rashi's commentary on Ezekiel. Besides, Shemaiah made

additions to Rashi's Talmudic commentaries, and composed several commentaries under his guidance. He

also collected and edited Rashi's Decisions and Responsa, serving, as it were, as Rashi's literary executor.

Moreover, he was a relative of Rashi's, though the degree of kinship is not known, the evidence of authors

upon the subject being contradictory. Some maintain he was Rashi's grandson, or soninlaw, or the son

inlaw of his sister; according to others and this seems more exact he was the fatherinlaw of a brother of

At all events, it was Rashi's relatives who contributed most to his renown. "In regard to his family Rashi

enjoyed unexampled good fortune," says Zunz. "It was not only through his disciples, but also through his

family that the founder of rabbinical literature in France and Germany established his reputation, spread his

works, and added to the lustre [luster sic] of his name." A fact which no doubt helped to assure the direction

of the studies made by Rashi's descendants, is that they possessed the manuscripts written and corrected by

their ancestor; and these autographs were veritable treasures at a time when books were rare and copies

One of Rashi's sonsinlaw, Judah ben Nathan,[133] was a scholarly and highly esteemed Talmudist. At the

suggestion of his fatherinlaw, he completed Rashi's commentaries and continued the work after Rashi's

death, using as his chief aid the oral explanations he had received from him. The son of Judah, Yomtob, was

The other soninlaw, Meir ben Samuel (about 10651135), was originally from the little town of

Rameru,[134] which through him and his sons became an important intellectual centre [center sic] for more

than a half century. Meir was a distinguished scholar whom his sons sometimes cite as an authority. He wrote

Responsa in association with his master and fatherinlaw. As I have already stated, Meir ben Samuel

married a daughter of Rashi, Jochebed, by whom he had four sons and a daughter, Miriam, the wife of

Samuel of Vitry. One of the sons, Solomon, has been known to us for only about twelve years, although he

had a reputation as a Talmudic and Biblical scholar, chiefly the latter, having received the surname of "father

of grammarians." His reputation, however, was eclipsed by that of his three brothers, who have poetically

been called the three vigorous branches of the tree of which Rashi was the trunk. These were 3� 3 �

�Samuel ben Meir, surnamed Rashbam, Jacob ben Meir, surnamed Jacob Tam, or Rabbenu Tam, and finally

Isaac ben Meir, surnamed Ribam. The last, who lived without doubt at Rameru and there composed

Tossafot,[135] died during the lifetime of his father, leaving seven young children. He did not equal his

Samuel ben Meir (about 10851158) studied under his grandfather. As we have seen[136] he discussed

exegetic questions with Rashi, and went so far as to express opinions in his presence concerning points of

casuistry. On Rashi's death, it seems, he assumed the direction of the school at Troyes; but he was more

prominently identified with the academy which he, following in the steps of his master, founded at Rameru,

and which soon became prosperous. It was at Rameru, too, that he wrote his valuable Talmudic

commentaries.[137] Among his pupils are said to have been Isaac ben Asher haLevi, of Speyer, and Joseph

Porat ben Moses, known also as Don Bendit. Samuel ben Meir's was a bold, independent spirit. In some

instances he sacrificed a Talmudic explanation for the sake of one that seemed more natural to him. In

addition he had a fair amount of scientific and philosophic knowledge, and he was very productive in the

But Rashbam's authority, if not his knowledge, was exceeded by that of his younger brother Jacob. Jacob

Tam, born about 1100, was still a very young child when Rashi died. He studied under the guidance of his

father, on whose death he assumed the direction of the academy of Rameru in his father's place. Then he went

to Troyes, where he was surrounded by numerous pupils, some from countries as distant as Bohemia and

Russia. One of his best known disciples was Eliezer ben Samuel, of Metz (died about 1198), author of the

Sefer Yereim (Book of the Pious). Other pupils of his mentioned were Moses ben Abraham, of Pontoise, to

whom he wrote in particularly affectionate terms, and Jacob of Orleans, a scholar held in high regard, who

died at London in 1189 in the riot that broke out the day of Richard I's coronation. A year later, in 1190, the

liturgical poet and Biblical commentator Yomtob de Joigny died at York. It seems that Jacob Tam, like his

successors, had to suffer from the popular hate and excesses. In fact he tells how, on one occasion, on the

second day of Pentecost (possibly at the time of the troubles resulting from the Second Crusade), he was

robbed and wounded, and was saved from death only through the intervention of a lord. The end of his life

was saddened by the autodafe of Blois, at which numerous Jews suffered martyrdom. He perpetuated the

memory of that occasion by instituting a fast day. He died in 1171, universally regretted for his clear and

accurate intellect, his piety, uprightness, amiability, and modesty. His contemporaries considered him the

highest rabbinical authority, and he was consulted by persons as remote as in the south of France and the

north of Spain. He possessed a remarkably original, broad yet subtle intellect, and his writings display keen

penetration and singular vigor of thought. He devoted himself chiefly to Biblical exegesis; but in this domain

he obtained a reputation less through the purely 3� 3 �exegetical parts than through the critical work

in which he defended the grammarian Menahem against the attacks of Dunash.[138] His liturgical

compositions and the short poems with which he sometimes prefaced his Responsa show that he was a clever

poet, an imitator of the Spaniards. Abraham Ibn Ezra while on his rovings in France was one of his

However, Jacob Tam, or, to call him by his title of honor, Rabbeun Tam, in allusion to Gen. xxv. 27, where

Jacob is described as "tam," a man of integrity owed his renown to his Talmudic activity, which he exerted

in an original line of work though he was not entirely free from the influence of Rashi. If he was not the

creator of a new sort of Talmudic literature, he was at least one of its first representatives. Either because he

considered the commentaries of his grandfather impossible to imitate, or because he could not adapt himself

to their simplicity and brevity, he took pleasure in raising ingenious objections against them and proposing

original solutions. These explanations joined to his Decisions and Responsa were collected by him in a work

called Sefer haYashar (Book of the Just), of which he himself made two redactions. The one we now

possess was put together rather inaccurately after the death of the author according to the second

recension. The Sefer haYashar was used a great deal by later Talmudists. It may be said to have inaugurated

As the word signifies, the Tossafot are "additional notes," "Novellae," upon the Talmud. They display great

erudition, ingenuity, and forcible logic, and they represent a prodigious effort of sharp analysis and

hardbound dialectics. The authors of the Tossafot, the Tossafists, were marvellously [marvelously sic] skilful

[skillful sic] at turning a text about and viewing it in all its possible meanings, at discovering intentions and

unforeseen consequences. Their favorite method was to raise one or more objections, to set forth one or more

contradictions between two texts, and then to propound one or more solutions, which, if not marked by

simplicity and verisimilitude, none the less bear the stamp of singularly keen insight. In their hands the study

of the Talmud became a sturdy course in intellectual gymnastics. It refined the intellect and exercised the

sense of logic. Yet it would be a mistake to see in the Tossafot nothing but the taste for controversy and love

of discussion for the sake of discussion. The Tossafists, even more than Rashi, sought to deduce the norm,

especially the practical norm, from the Talmudic discussions, and discover analogies permitting the solution

of new cases. Thus, while Rashi's commentary is devoted to the explanation of words, and, more generally, of

the simple meaning of the text, the Tossafot enter into a searching consideration of the debates of the Talmud.

Moreover, Rashi composed short but numerous notes, while the Tossafists wrote lengthier but less

consecutive commentaries. At the same time one of Rashi's explanations is a fragment of the Tossafot

explanation. Thus, the commentary of the Tossafists exists in abridged form, as it were, in germ, in the

commentary of Rashi. Rashi was the 3 3 �constant guide of the Tossafists. His commentary, "the

Commentary," as they called it, was ever the basis for their "additions." They completed or discussed it; in

each case they made it their point of departure, and his influence is apparent at every turn. The species of

literature called Tossafot is not only thoroughly French in origin, but, it may said, without Rashi it would

never have come into existence. The authors of the Tossafot are as much the commentators of Rashi as they

are of the Talmud.[139] The Tossafot bear the same relation to his Talmudic commentary as the Gemara to

the Mishnah. Like the Amoraim in regard to the Tannaim, the Tossafists set themselves the task of

completing and correcting the work of the master; for, despite their veneration for Rashi, they did not by any

The first Tossafists, both in point of age and worth, were not only the disciples, but also, as we have seen,

even the descendants of Rashi. "We drink," said R. Tam, "at the source of R. Solomon." One of the most

celebrated Tossafists was a greatgrandson of Rashi, Isaac ben Samuel (about 11201195) surnamed the

Elder, son of a sister of R. Tam and grandson, on his father's side, of Simhah, of Vitry. Born without doubt at

Rameru, he attended the school of his two uncles, Samuel ben Meir and Jacob Tam. When Jacob Tam left for

Troyes, Isaac ben Samuel took his place. Later he founded a school at Dampierre,[140] where, it is said, he

had sixty pupils, each of whom knew one of the treatises of the Talmud by heart. Through his departure,

Rameru lost its importance as a centre [center sic] of study. He collected and coordinated various

explanations growing out of Rashi's commentaries. Thus he established the foundations for the Tossafot, on

He was the teacher of the most learned Talmudists of the end of the twelfth and the beginning of the

thirteenth century. His son and collaborator Elhanan, a highly esteemed rabbi, died before him, some say as a

martyr. Among his disciples are said to have been Baruch ben Isaac, originally from Worms, later resident of

Ratisbon, author of the Sefer haTerumah (Book of the HeaveOffering), one of the first and most

influential casuistic collections (about 1200); Isaac ben Abraham, called the Younger to distinguish him from

his master, whom he succeeded and who died a little before 1210; and the brother of Isaac, Samson of Sens

(about 11501230), whose commentaries, according to the testimony of Asheri, exercised the greatest

influence upon the study of the Talmud. He was one of the most illustrious representatives of the French

school, and his authority was very great. His usual abiding place was Sens in Burgundy, but about 1211 he

emigrated to Palestine in the company of some other scholars. He met his death at St. Jean d'Acre.

By this time Champagne had proved too contracted a field for the activity of so many rabbis. Flourishing

schools arose in Ilede France and Normandy; and it is related that at Paris, in the first half of the twelfth

century, lived the scholarly and pious Elijah ben Judah, who carried on a controversy about phylacteries �

3J 3 �with his kinsman Jacob Tam. But the most celebrated Tossafist of Paris without reserve was

Judah Sir Leon, born in 1166 and died in 1224, a descendant of Rashi. The school of Paris having been closed

after the expulsion of 1181, Judah went to study at Dampierre under the guidance of Isaac and his son

Elhanan. Among his fellowdisciples, besides the rabbis already mentioned, were Samson Sir of Coucy,

Solomon of Dreux, Simon of Joinville, Abraham ben Nathan, of Lunel, and others. In 1198 Philip Augustus

recalled the Jews he had expelled, and the community again prospered. Judah reestablished the school,

which soon assumed the first place in the list of academies. Among his numerous pupils mention is made of

Moses ben Jacob, of Coucy, brotherinlaw of Samson and 'author of the famous Sefer Mizwot Gadol (Great

Book of Precepts), abbreviated to Semag, which shows the mingled influence of the Mishneh Torah of

Maimonides and of the Tossafot of the French masters; Isaac ben Moses, of Vienna, who carried into Austria

the methods and teachings of his French masters, surnamed Or Zarua after the title of his work, a valuable

ritual compilation; and Samuel ben Solomon Sir Morel,[141] of Falalse (about 11751253), whose most

celebrated pupil was Meir of Rothenburg, the greatest authority of his country and his time, known for his

The successor of Judah Sir Leon was Jehiel ben Joseph, or Sir Vives, of Meaux. At this time the school is

said to have counted three hundred pupils. In the disputation of 1240,[142] Jehiel ben Joseph together with

Moses of Coucy, Samuel of Falaise, and another less wellknown rabbi, Judah ben David, of Melun,

represented the Jews. A Christian source calls Jehiel "the cleverest and most celebrated of all the Jews."

When he left for Palestine in 1260 the school of Paris was closed not to be opened again.

Jehiel left behind him in France two important disciples, his soninlaw, Isaac ben Joseph, of Corbeil (died

in 1280), who in 1277 published the "Columns of Exile," also called Sefer Mizwot Katan (Little Book of

Precepts), abbreviated to Semak, a religious and ethical collection, which enjoyed great vogue; and Perez ben

Elia, of Corbeil (died about 1295), who mentions Isaac as his master also. Perez visited Brabant and

Germany, where he maintained relations with Meir of Rothenburg. Among his pupils there was Mordecai ben

Hillel, an authority highly esteemed for his decisions, who died a martyr at Nuremberg in 1298. Another

master of his was Samuel ben Shneor, of Evreux (about 1225), a muchquoted Tossafist, who studied under

the guidance of his elder brother Moses, editor of the "Tossafot of Evreux," largely used for the present

printed editions of the Tossafot. In the second half of the thirteenth century, Eliezer of Touques compiled the

Tossafot of Sens, of Evreux, etc., adding his own explanations on the margin. His work forms the chief basis

As always with redactions and compilations, these mentioned here 3 3 �are a sign of the

discontinuance of studies, worn threadbare by two centuries of intense activity. Decadence, moreover, was

brought about more rapidly, as we shall see, by the misfortunes that successively befell the Jews of France.

Rashi's influence was no less enduring and no less wholesome in the province of Biblical exegesis. An idea

of the impression he made may be gained from the fact that more than fifty super commentaries were

written on his commentary on the Pentateuch, to explain or to complete it, to defend it, and occasionally to

combat it. But Rashi's influence was productive of still more than this. It called into being original works

superior even to his own. His disciples shook off the yoke of Talmudic and Midrashic tradition that had

rested upon him. But even when they surpassed him, it was nevertheless his influence that was acting upon

Samuel ben Meir, diffuse as were his Talmudic commentaries, was admirably brief in his commentary on the

Pentateuch, which is a model of simplicity and accuracy, and is marked by insight and subtlety. It is possibly

the finest product of the French exegetic school. It sets forth general rules of interpretation, as, for instance,

that the Bible should be explained through itself and without the aid of the Haggadic or even Halakic

Midrash. Literal exegesis, said Samuel ben Meir, is more forceful than Halakic interpretation. He so

resolutely pursued the method of Pesbat, that Nahmanides felt justified in declaring he sometimes overdid it.

The same admirable qualities exist in Rashbam's commentaries on the Prophets and the Hagiographa, in

which he everywhere turns to excellent account the works of his ancestor, sometimes merely referring to

them, but also combating Rashi's explanations, though in this case he does not mention Rashi.

Eliezer of Beaugency and Moses of Paris (middle of the twelfth century) were doubtless among the disciples

of Samuel ben Meir. Moses of Paris, in turn, had a pupil by the name of Gabriel.

Occasionally Rashbam did not disdain the Midrash. But the same cannot be said of his friend and

collaborator Joseph ben Simon Kara (born about 10601070, died about 11301140), a nephew and disciple

of Menahem ben Helbo, and the friend if not the disciple of Rashi, to whom he acknowledges himself

indebted. He wrote additions to Rashi's commentaries, and on Rashi's advice wrote a part of his Biblical

commentaries, several of which have been published. They enjoyed great vogue, and in certain manuscripts

they are set alongside of, or replace, Rashi's commentaries. They fully deserve the honor; for, in fact, Joseph

Kara surpasses Rashi and rivals Rashbam in his fairminded criticism, his scrupulous attachment to the literal

meaning, and his absolutely clear idea of the needs of a wholesome exegesis, to say nothing of his theological

views, which are always remarkable and sometimes bold. He frankly rejected the Midrash, and compares �

3� 3 �the person making use of it to the drowning man who clutches at a straw. Contrary to tradition

Side by side with Joseph Kara belongs his rival and younger contemporary Joseph BekorShor, doubtless the

same person as Joseph ben Isaac, of Orleans, who was a disciple of Rabbenu Tam, and must, therefore, have

lived in the middle of the twelfth century. His commentary on the Pentateuch, which has been published in

part, is frequently cited by later exegetes, and its reputation is justified by its keen insight and its vein of odd

originality. Joseph BekorShor had felt the influence of the Spaniards, but he had yielded to the attractions of

Talmudic dialectics, which he had acquired at a good school, although, like his master, he cites, in connection

Quae secutae sunt magis defieri quam narrari possunt. In the works of the second half of the twelfth century

this fault becomes more and more perceptible, and signs of decadence begin to appear. Moreover, the

writings at this time were very numerous, fostering, and, in turn, stimulated by, antiChristian polemics. The

greater number of the Tossafists study the Bible in conjunction with the Talmud. Citations are made of

explanations or Biblical commentaries by Jacob of Orleans, Moses of Pontoise, Isaac the Elder, Isaac the

Younger, Judah Sir Leon, Jehiel of Meaux, and Moses of Coucy. All these rabbis wrote Tossafot to the Bible

as well as to the Talmud. This comparative study of Bible and Talmud was continued for some time, untill

[until sic] at the beginning of the thirteenth century intellectual activity was exhausted. Original works were

replaced by a large number of compilations, all related to one another, since the authors copied without

Chief among these works, which bear the general title of Tossafot to the Torah and some of which have been

printed, are Hazzekuni, by Hezekiah ben Manoah (about 1240), Gan[143] (Garden), by Aaron ben Joseph,

(about 1250), Daat Zekenim (Knowledge of the Ancients), in which many exegetes are cited (after 1252),

Paaneah Razah (Revealer of the Mystery), by Isaac ben Judah haLevi (about 1300), Minhat

Yehudah (Offering of Judah), by Judah ben Eliezer (or Eleazar), of Troyes (1313), Hadar Zekenim (Glory of

the Ancients; beginning of the fourteenth century), and Imre Noam (Pleasant Words), by Jacob of Illescas

All these works were more or less inspired by Rashi, and some, such as Hazzekuni, might be called

supercommentaries to Rashi. But these disciples were not true to the spirit of the master. They gave

themselves up to the Haggadah more than he did, and also to a thing unknown to him, Gematria and mystical

exegesis. Thus this French school, which for nearly a century had shone with glowing brilliance, now threw

out only feeble rays, 3� 3 �and abandoned itself more and more to the subtleties of the Midrash, to

the fancifulness of the Gematria. It almost consigned to oblivion the great productions in rational exegesis,

always excepting Rashi's commentaries, the popularity of which never waned, as much because of the

It remained for a Christian exegete to free rational exegesis from the discredit into which it had fallen. The

ecclesiastical commentators even more than the authors of the Biblical Tossafot were steeped in allegorism

and mysticism; but among them were some who cultivated the interpretation of the literal meaning of

Scriptures, and even appealed to Jewish scholars for explanations'. Unfortunately, Rashi's works, written in a

language unintelligible to the Christians, could not in any degree influence a general intellectual movement.

However, exception must be made of the celebrated Franciscan monk Nicholas de Lyra (born about 1292,

died in 1340), author of the Postillae perpetuae on the Bible which brought him the title of doctor planus et

utilis. Nicholas de Lyra possessed knowledge rare among Christians, knowledge of the Hebrew language, and

he knew Hebrew so well that he was thought to be a converted Jew. In his works, polemical in character, he

comes out against the mystical tendencies in the interpretations of the rabbis, and does not spare Rashi, even

attributing to him explanations nowhere existing in Rashi's writings. But these criticisms of his, as he himself

says, are "extremely rare." Moreover he does not refrain from accepting for his own purposes a large number

of Midrashim borrowed from Rashi. It was from Rashi's commentaries, in fact, that he learned to know

rabbinical literature only to combat it. On one occasion he said, "I usually follow Rabbi Solomon, whose

teachings are considered authoritative by modern Jews." He sometimes modified the text of the Vulgate

according to the explanations of the rabbi, and his commentary on the Psalms, for instance, is often only a

paraphrase of Rashi's. For this reason Nicholas de Lyra was dubbed, it must be admitted somewhat

irreverently, simia Salomonis, Rashi's Ape. Nevertheless, he exercised great influence in ecclesiastical

circles, comparable to that of Rashi among the Jews. His commentary was called "the common commentary."

Possibly it was in imitation of Nicholas's work that the name glosa hebraica (the Hebrew commentary), or

simply glosa, was bestowed upon Rashi's work by a Christian author of the thirteenth century, who, if not the

famous scholar and monk Roger Bacon, must have been some one of the same type. Another Christian

exegete of the same period, William of Mara, cites Rashi's commentary under the title of Perus. The

admiration felt for Nicholas de Lyra, which now seems somewhat excessive, is expressed in the wellknown

proverb: Si Lyra non lyrasset, totus mondus delirasset. A modification of the proverb, si Lyra non lyrasset,

Lutherius non saltasset, is not an exaggeration; for the works of the Franciscan monk were soon translated

into German, and they exercised a profound influence on the leader of the Reformation 3 �when he

composed the translation of the Bible, epochmaking in the history of literature as well as of religion. It is

known that Luther had large knowledge of the Hebrew and a strong feeling for it, a quality he owed to

Nicholas de Lyra and, through him, to the Jewish exegetes, although his scornful pride would never permit

him to concede that "Rashi and the Tossafists made Nicholas de Lyra and Nicholas de Lyra made Luther."

At the time when Rashi's influence was thus extended to Christian circles, the Jewish schools called into

being by his work and his teachings fell into decay on account of the persecutions that shook French Judaism

to its foundations and almost deprived it of existence. This shows how firmly intellectual activities are bound

up with temporal fortunes a truth manifested in the period of growth and maturity and illustrated afresh in

Even after the First Crusade, the situation of the Jews of France had remained favorable. It did not

perceptibly change as a result of the various local disorders marking the Second Crusade. Nevertheless, the

second half of the twelfth century witnessed the uprise of accusations of ritual murder and piercings of the

host. Popular hatred and mistrust were exploited by the greedy kings. Philip Augustus expelled the Jews from

his domain in 1181, though he recalled them in 1198. Yet the example had been set, and the security of the

Jews was done for. The lords and bishops united to persecute them, destroy their literary treasures, and

paralyze their intellectual efforts. They found the right king for their purposes in St. Louis, a curious mixture

of tolerance and bigotry, of charity and fanaticism. "St. Louis sought to deprive the Jews of the book which in

all their trials was their supreme consolation, the refuge of their souls against outside clamor and suffering,

the only safeguard of their morality, and the bond maintaining their religious oneness the Talmud." In 1239

an apostate, Nicholas Donin, of La Rochelle, denounced the Talmud to Gregory IX. The Pope ordered the

seizure of all copies, and an investigation of the book. In France the mandate was obeyed, and a disputation

took place at Paris. Naturally, the Talmud was condemned, and twenty four cartloads of Hebrew books

were consigned to the flames. The autodafe of 1242 marks the decadence of an entire literature, the ruin

of brilliant schools, and the check to the movement so gloriously inaugurated by Rashi. All the living forces

But the fall was neither complete nor sudden. It was not until 1306 that the Jews were exiled from France by

Philip the Fair, and a hundred thousand persons had to leave the country in which their nation had long

The expulsion of 1306 withdrew French Judaism to the provinces directly attached to the crown. In vain were

the Jews recalled in 1315 "at the general cry of the people." Only a very few profited by the tolerance shown

them. After that their existence 3] 3 �was troubled by riots, and broken in upon by expulsions. The

schools, of old so flourishing, fell into a state of utter decay. About 1360 France could not count six Jewish

scholars, and the works of the time show to what degree of degradation rabbinical studies had sunk. With the

expulsion of 1394 Charles VI dealt the finishing stroke. Thereafter French Judaism was nothing but the

shadow of itself. Having received a mortal wound in 1306, its life up to the final expulsion in 1394 was one

Thus disappeared that French Judaism which contributed so large a portion to the economic and intellectual

civilization of its fatherland during the time the sun of tolerance shone on its horizon, but which was destined

to perish the moment the greed of princes and the fanaticism of priests, hoodwinking the masses, united to

overwhelm it. Nevertheless the three centuries of fruitful activity were not entirely lost to the future; and the

Jews of France, who had gone in numbers to foreign lands, carried with them their books and their ideals.

For a long time previous to the events just recorded, Rashi and the Tossafists the two words summing up

the whole intellectual movement of the Jews of France had brought to all Judaism the reputation of the

academies of Champagne and of IledeFrance. "He brew literature in France," wrote E. Carmoly,

"exercised upon the Jewish world the same influence that French literature exercised upon European

civilization in general. Everywhere the Biblical and Talmudic works of Troyes, Rameru, Dampierre, and

Paris became the common guides of the synagogues." Rashi's commentaries, in especial, spread rapidly and

were widely copied, sometimes enlarged by additions, sometimes mutilated and truncated. It is for this reason

In view of the fact that at the beginning of the thirteenth century relations between remote countries and

Christendom were rare, and that the Christian and the Mohammedan worlds had scarcely begun to open up to

each other and come into contact, it is readily understood why Rashi was not known in Arabic countries in

his lifetime, or even immediately after his death, and why he exercised no influence upon Maimonides, who

died exactly a hundred years after him. In the Orient there are no signs of his influence until the end of the

twelfth century. In 1192, barely eighty years after Rashi's death, an exilarch had one of his commentaries

copied; and at the beginning of the thirteenth century we find the commentator Samuel ben Nissim, of

But it is naturally in the regions nearest to France that Rashi's influence made itself most felt. The profound

Talmudist, Zerahiah haLevi, who lived at Lunel (11251186), rather frequently cites "R. Solomon the

Frenchman," and contents himself with merely referring to Rashi's commentary without quoting in full, a fact

3� 3 �which shows that the work was widely spread in the Provence. A number of years later, about

1245, Meir, son of Simon of Narbonne, wrote in his apologetic work, "The Holy War" : "The commentaries

are understood by all readers, for the least as well as the most important things are perfectly explained in

them. Since their appearance, there is not a rabbi who has studied without using them." I have already

referred to the testimony of Menahem ben Zerah;[144] to his may be added that of another Provencal, Estori

Parhi, who left France in 1306 to visit Spain, and wrote an interesting book of Halakah and of recollections of

his travels. About 1320, David d'Estella, philosopher and poet, wrote: "It is from France that God has sent us

a bright light for all Israel in the person of R. Solomon ben Isaac." Rashi was also cited in terms of praise by

the brilliant commentator and philosopher Menahem ben Solomon Meiri, of Perpignan (12491306), and by

the casuist and theologian Jacob de Bagnols (about 1357 1361), grandson of David d'Estella.

From the Provence, Rashi's renown spread on the one side to Italy, and on the other to Spain. His Biblical

commentary was used by Benjamin ben Abraham Anaw (about 1240), of Rome, whose brother Zedekiah was

the author of the Halakic and ritual collection Shibbole haLeket (The Gleaned Sheaves), a work written in

the second half of the thirteenth century, which owes much to Rashi and his successors. The celebrated

scholar and poet Immanuel ben Solomon Romi (about 12651330) seems to have known Rashi, one of

whose Biblical explanations he cites for the purpose of refuting it. The influence of the French commentator

is more apparent in the works of the Italian philosopher and commentator Solomon Yedidiah (about

Rashi's influence was more fruitful of results in Spain, where intellectual activity was by far more developed

than in Italy. His renown soon crossed the Pyrenees, and, curiously enough, the Spanish exegetes, disciples of

the Hayyoudjes and the IbnDjanahs availed themselves of his Biblical commentary, despite its inferiority

from a scientific point of view. They did not fail, it is true, occasionally to dispute it. This was the case with

Abraham Ibn Ezra, who possibly came to know Rashi's works during his sojourn in France, and combated

Rashi's grammatical explanations without sparing him his wonted sharpedged witticisms. To Abraham Ibn

Ezra has been attributed the following poem in Rashi's honor, without doubt wrongfully so, although

When one sees with what severity and injustice Abraham Ibn Ezra treats the French commentator, one may

well doubt whether this enthusiastic eulogy sprang from his pen, capricious though we know him to have

been. "The Talmud," he said, "has declared that the Peshat must never lose its rights. But following

generations gave the first place to Derash, as Rashi did, who pursued this method in commenting upon the

entire Bible, though he believed he was using Peshat. In his works there is not one rational explanation out of

a thousand." As I have said, Rashi and Ibn Ezra were not fashioned to understand each other.[145] The

commentaries of David Kimhi[146] contain no such sharp criticisms. By birth Kimhi was a Provencal, by

literary tradition a Spaniard. He often turned Rashi's Biblical commentaries to good account for himself.

Sometimes he did not mention Rashi by name, sometimes he referred to him openly.

A pompous eulogy of Rashi was written by Moses ben Nahman, or Nahmanides,[147] in the introduction to

his commentary on the Pentateuch; and the body of the work shows that he constantly drew his inspiration

from Rashi and ever had Rashi before his eyes. At the same time he also opposes Rashi, either because the

free ways of the French rabbi shocked him, or because the Frenchman's naive rationalism gave offense to his

mysticism. In fact, it is known that Nahmanides is one of the first representatives of Kabbalistic exegesis, and

his example contributed not a little toward bringing it into credit. Even the author of the Zohar that Bible of

the Kabbalah, which under cover of false authority exercised so lasting an influence upon Judaism whether

or not he was Moses of Leon (about 12501305) used for his exegesis the commentary of Rashi, without, of

course, mentioning it by name, and sometimes he even reproduced it word for word. The Kabbalist exegete

Bahya or Behaia ben Asher, of Saragossa, in his commentary on the Pentateuch (1291) cites Rashi as one of

the principal representatives of Peshat behold how far we have gotten from Ibn Ezra, and how Rashi is

Although Nahmanides was wrongly held to have been the disciple of Judab Sir Leon, it was he who

introduced into Spain the works and the method of French Talmudists, whom he possibly came to know

through his masters. Thus the Spanish Talmudists, though they boasted such great leaders as Alfasi and

Maimonides, nevertheless accepted also the heritage of the French academies. Rashi's influence is perceptible

and acknowledged in the numerous Talmudic writings of Solomon ben Adret,[148] and it is clearly manifest

in the commentary on Alfasi by Nissim Gerundi (about 1350), who copies Rashi literally, at the same time

developing his thought, not infrequently overelaborating it. He also refutes Rashi at times, but his refutation

is often wrong. The man, however, who best represents the fusion of Spanish and French Talmudism was

assuredly Asher hen Jehiel,[149] who, a native of the banks of the Rhine, implanted in Spain the spirit of

French Judaism, and in his abridgment of the Talmud united Spanish tradition, whose principal representative

Since that time Talmudic activity, the creative force of which seems to have been exhausted, has been

undergoing a change of character. Asher ben Jehiel, or, as he has been called, Rosh, terminated an important

period of rabbinical literature, the period of the Rishonim. We have seen how during this period Rashi's

reputation, at first confined within the limits of his native province, extended little by little, until it spread

over the surrounding countries, like the tree of which Daniel speaks, "whose height reached unto the heaven,

and the sight thereof to all the earth; whose leaves were fair, and the fruit thereof much" (Dan. iv. 2021).

It might be supposed that the Jews of France, chased from their fatherland, and so deprived of their schools,

would have disappeared entirely from the scene of literary history, and that the intellectual works brought

into being by their activity in the domains of Biblical exegesis and Talmudic jurisprudence would have been

lost forever. Such was by no means the case. It has been made clear that the French school exerted influence

outside of France fr9m the twelfth to the fourteenth century, and we shall now see how the Jews of France,

saving their literary treasures in the midst of the disturbances, carried their literature to foreign countries, to

Piedmont and to Germany. When the Jews of Germany were expelled in turn, Poland became the centre

[center sic] of Judaism, and the literary tradition was thus maintained without interruption up to the present

time. It is an unique example of continuity. The vitality of Judaism gained strength in the misfortunes that

A large number of Jews exiled from France established themselves in the north of Italy, where they formed

distinct communities faithful to the ancient traditions. Thus they propagated the works of the French rabbis.

Rashi's commentaries and the ritual collections following his teachings were widely copied there, and of

course, truncated and mutilated. They served both as the textbooks of students and as the breviaries, so to

They also imposed themselves, as we have seen, upon the Spanish rabbis, who freely recognized the

superiority of the Jews of France and Germany in regard to Talmudic schools. Isaac ben Sheshet[150] said,

"From France goes forth the Law, and the word of God from Germany. "Rashi's influence is apparent in the

Talmudic writings of this rabbi, as well as in the works, both Talmudic and exegetic in character, of his

successor Simon ben Zemah Duran,[151] and in the purely exegetic works of the celebrated Isaac Abrabanel

(14371509), who salutes in Rashi "a father in the province of the Talmud. "It was in the fifteenth century

that some of the supercommentaries were made to Rashi's commentary on the Pentateuch. The most

celebratedand justly celebratedis that of Elijah ben Abraham Mizrahi, a Hebrew scholar, mathematician,

and philosopher, who lived in Turkey. His commentary, says Wogue, "is a masterpiece of logic, keen

However, as if the creative force of the Jews had been exhausted by a prolific period lasting several centuries,

Rashi's commentaries were not productive of original works in a similar style. Accepted everywhere, they

became the law everywhere, but they did not stimulate to fresh effort. Scholars followed him, as the poet

For if his works had spent their impulse, his personality, on the other hand, became more and more popular.

Legends sprang up ascribing to him the attributes of a saint and universal scholar, almost a magician.[152] He

was venerated as the father of rabbinical literature. In certain German communities, he, together with a few

other rabbis, is mentioned in the prayer recited in commemoration of the dead, and his name is followed by

the formula, "who enlightened the eyes of the Captivity by his commentaries. "Rashi's commentaries not only

exercised profound influence upon the literary movement of the Jews, but also wove a strain into the destinies

of the Jews of France and Germany. During this entire period of terror, the true middle ages of the Jews, for

whom the horrors of the First Crusade, like a "disastrous twilight," did not draw to an end until the bright

dawn of the French Revolution, the thing that sustained and animated them, that enabled them to bear pillage

and exploitation, martyrdom and exile, was their unremitting study of the Bible and the Talmud. And how

could they have become so passionately devoted to the reading of the two books, if Rashi had not given them

the key, if he had not thus converted the books into a safeguard for the Jews, a lamp in the midst of darkness,

Rashi's prestige then became so great that the principal Jewish communities claimed him as their own,[153]

and highstanding families alleged that they were connected with him. It is known that the celebrated mystic

Eleazar of Worms (11601230) is a descendant of his. A certain Solomon Simhah, of Troyes, in 1297 wrote

a casuistic, ethical work in which he claims to belong to the fourth generation descended from Rashi

beginning with Rashi's sonsinlaw. The family of the French rabbi may be traced down to the thirteenth

century. At that time mention is made of a Samuel ben Jacob, of Troyes, who lived in the south of France.

And it is also from Rashi that the family Luria, or Loria, pretends to be descended, although the titles for its

claim are not incontestably authentic. The name of Loria comes, not, as has been said, from the river Loire,

but from a little city of Italy, and the family itself may have originated in Alsace. Its head, Solomon, son of

Samuel Spira (about 1375), traced his connection with Rashi through his mother, a daughter of Mattathias

Treves, one of the last French rabbis. The daughter of Solomon, Miriam (this name seems to have been

frequent in Rashi's family), was, it appears, a scholar. It is certain that the family has produced illustrious

offspring, among them Yosselmann of Rosheim (about 1554), the famous rabbi and defender of the Jews of

the Empire; Elijah Loanz (about 15641616), wandering rabbi, Kabbalist, and commentator; Solomon

Luria[154] (died in 1573 at Lublin), likewise a Kabbalist and Talmudist, but of the highest rank, on account

of his bold thinking and sense of logic, who renewed the study of the Tossafists; and Jehiel Heilprin (about

1725), descended from Luria through his mother, author of a valuable and learned Jewish chronicle followed

by an index of rabbis. He declared he had seen a genealogical table on which Rashi's name appeared

establishing his descent from so remote an ancestor as Johanan haSandlar and including Rashi in the

steps.[155] This family, which was divided into two branches, the Heilprins and the Lurias, still counts

As if the numberless copies of his commentaries had not sufficed to spread Rashi's popularity, the discovery

of printing lent its aid in giving it the widest possible vogue. The commentary on the Pentateuch is the first

Hebrew work of which the date of printing is known. The edition was published at Reggio at the beginning of

1475 by the printer Abraham ben Garton. Zunz reckoned that up to 1818 there were seventeen editions in

which the commentary appeared alone, and one hundred and sixty in which it accompanied the text. Some

modifications were introduced into the commentary either because of the severity of the censors or because

of the prudence of the editors. Among the books that the Inquisition confiscated in 1753 in a small city of

All the printed editions of the Babylonian Talmud are accompanied by Rashi's commentaries in the inner

Rashi's authority gained in weight more and more, and he became representative in ordinary, as it were, of

Talmudic exegesis. This fact is made evident by a merely superficial survey of the work Bet Yosef (House of

Joseph), which is, one may say, an index to rabbinical literature. Rashi is mentioned here on every page. He

is the official commentator of the Talmudic text. The author of the Bet Yosef, the learned Talmudist and

Kabbalist Joseph ben Ephraim Karo (born 1448, died at Safed, Palestine, at 87 years of age), places Rashi's

Biblical commentary on the same plane as the Aramaic translation of the Bible. He recommends that it be

read on the Sabbath, at the same time as the Pentateuch and the Targum. Luria goes even further. According

to him, when the Targum and Rashi cannot be read at the same time, preference should be given to Rashi,

Rashi's commentary, therefore, entered into the religious life of the Jews. It is chiefly the commentaries on

the Five Books of Moses and the Five Megillot, the Scriptural books forming part of the synagogue liturgy,

that were widely circulated in print and were made the basis of supercommentaries. The best of these are the

supercommentary of Simon Ashkenazi, a writer of the seventeenth century, born in Frankfort and died at

Jerusalem, and the clear, ingenious supercommentary of Sabbatai ben Joseph Bass, printer and

The other representatives of the French school of exegetes have fallen into oblivion. Rashi alone survived,

and what saved him, I greatly fear, were the Halakic and Haggadic elements pervading his commentary. An

editor who ventured to undertake the publication (in 1705) of the commentary on the Pentateuch by Samuel

ben Meir,[156] complains in the preface that his contemporaries found in it nothing worth occupying their

time. Rashi's commentary was better adapted to the average intellects and to the Talmudic culture of its

Rashi's Talmudic commentary, also, was more generally studied than other commentaries, and gave a more

stimulating impulse to rabbinical literature. Teachers and masters racked their brains to discover in it

unexpected difficulties, for the sake of solving them in the most ingenious fashion. This produced the kind of

literature known as Hiddushim, Novellae, and Dikdukim, subtleties. A rabbi, for example, would set himself

the task of counting the exact number of times the expression "that is to say" occurs in the commentary on the

first three Talmudic treatises. Jacob ben Joshua Falk (died 1648), who believed Rashi had appeared to him in

a dream, attempted in his "Defense of Solomon" to clear the master of all attacks made upon him. Solomon

Luria and Samuel Edels (about 15551631), or, as is said in the schools, the Maharshal and the Maharsha,

explain the difficult passages of Rashi's Talmudic commentary, sometimes by dint of subtlety, sometimes by

happy corrections. Still more meritorious are the efforts of Joel Sirkes (died in 1640 at Cracow), who often

By a curious turn in affairs it was the Christians who in the province of exegesis took up the legacy

bequeathed by Rashi. While grammar and exegesis by reason of neglect remained stafionary among the Jews,

the humanists cultivated them eagerly. Taste for the classical languages had aroused a lively interest in

Hebrew and a desire to know the Scriptures in the original. The Reformation completed what the Renaissauce

had begun, and the Protestants placed the Hebrew Bible above the Vulgate. Rashi, it is true, did not gain

immediately from this renewal of Biblical studies; greater inspiration was derived from the more methodical

and more scientific Spaniards. But his eclipse was only momentary. Richard Simon, who gave so vigorous an

impulse to Biblical studies in France, and who, if Bossuet had not forestalled him, would possibly have

originated a scientific method of exegesis, profited by the commentaries of the man he called major et

praestantior theologus. All the Christians with pretensions to Hebrew scholarship, who endeavored to

understand the Bible in the original, studied Rashi, not only because he helped them to grasp the meaning of

the text, but also because in their eyes he was the official rabbinical authority. He was quoted, abridged, and

plagiarized a clear sign of popularity. Soon the need arose to render him accessible to all theologians, and

he was translated into the academic language, that is, into Latin. Partial translations appeared in great number

between 1556 and 1710. Finally, J. F. Breithaupt made a complete translation, for which he had recourse to

various manuscripts. His work is marked by clear intelligence and great industry. This translation as well as

the commentary of Nicholas de Lyra might still be consulted with profit by an editor of Rashi.

Since the Christians did not devote themselves to the Talmud as much as to the Bible, they made but little use

of the Talmudic commentaries of the French rabbi. Nevertheless John Buxtorf the Elder, who calls Rashi

consummatissimus ille theologiae judaicae doctor, frequently appeals to his authority in the "Hebrew and

Nor did Rashi fail to receive the supreme honor of being censored by the Church. Under St. Louis

autosdafe were made of his works, and later the Inquisition pursued them with its rigorous measures.

They were prohibited in Spain and burnt in Italy. The ecclesiastical censors eliminated or corrected whatever

seemed to them an attempt upon the dignity of religion. At the present time many French ecclesiastics know

While the Catholics and Protestants who possessed Hebrew learning applied themselves to the study of

Isaiah Horwitz (15701630), whose ritual and ethical collection is still very popular in Eastern Europe,

compares Rashi's commentaries to the revelation on Sinai. "In every one of his phrases," he says, "marvellous

[marvelous sic] things are concealed, for he wrote under Divine inspiration." His son Sabbatai Sheftel is even

more striking in his expressions; he says, "I know by tradition that whoever finds a defect in Rashi, has a

defect in his own brain." It was related that when Rashi was worried by some difficult question, he shut

himself up in a room, where God appeared to throw light upon his doubts. The apparition came to him when

he was plunged in profound sleep, and he did not return to his waking senses until some one brought him an

article from the wall of his room. Thus a superstitious, sterile respect replaced the intelligent and productive

To revive the scientific spirit and the rational study of the Scriptures, a Moses Mendelssohn (17291786) was

needed. With the year 1780, when his translation of the Pentateuch and his commentary upon it appeared, the

renaissance of Jewish learning commenced; even the study of the Talmud, regenerated by the critical spirit of

the time, was resumed. Mendelssohn himself drew largely upon Rashi's commentary, correcting the text

when it seemed corrupt, trying to decipher the French laazim, and paying attention to the essential meaning of

Rashi's explanations, either for the sake of completing or defending them, or for the sake of refuting them in

the name of taste and good sense. His collaborators and disciples, the Biurists,as they are called, after Biur,

the general title of their works desirous of reconciling the natural meaning of the text with the traditional

interpretations, often turned to good account the views of the French commentator. These writings, which

renewed the rational study of Hebrew and the taste for a sound exegesis, worthily crown the work begun by

the rabbi of the eleventh century. At this day the Perush of Rashi and the Biur of Mendelssohn are the

Since Mendelssohn the glorious tradition of learning has not been interrupted again, and Rashi's work

continues to be bound up with the destinies of Jewish literature. The nineteenth century will make a place for

itself in the annals of this literature; for the love of Jewish learning has inspired numerous scholars, and the

renown of most of them is connected with Rashi. Zunz (1794 1886) became known in 1823 through his

essay on Rashi, a model of critical skill and learning, despite inevitable mistakes and omissions. Geiger 158

won a name for himself by his studies on the French exegetic school. Heidenheim[159] wrote a work

distinguished for subtlety, to defend the explanations of Rashi from the grammatical point of view. Samuel

David Luzzatto (1800 1865), with his usual brilliancy, made a warm defense of Rashi; and, finally, I. H.

Weiss[160] dedicated to him a study dealing with certain definite points in Rashi's life and work. When

Luzzatto took up the defense of Rashi with ardor, it was to place him over against Abraham Ibn Ezra, who, in

Luzzatto's opinion, was too highly exalted. The considerable progress made by exegesis and philology

rendered many scholars aware of the defectiveness of Rashi's Biblical commentaries; while Ibn Ezra was

more pleasing to them on account of his scientific intellect and his daring. But the French commentator lost

nothing of his authority in the eyes of the conservative students of Hebrew, who continued to see in him an

indispensable help. This influence of Rashi's contains mixed elements of good and evil. In some measure he

created the fortune of Midrashic exegesis, and he is in a slight degree responsible for the relative stagnation

In Talmudic literature, on the contrary, Rashi's authority is uncontested, in fact, cannot be contested. Its

stimulating impulse is not yet exhausted. While the Talmudists of the old school saw in him the official,

consecrated guide, the Rapoports,[161] the Weisses, the Frankels,[162] all who cultivated the scientific and

historic study of the Talmud, lay stress upon the excellence of his method and the sureness of his information.

About twelve years ago, an editor wanted to publish the entire Talmud in one volume. He obtained the

authorization of the rabbis only upon condition that he printed Rashi's commentary along with the text.

Thus Rashi's reputation has not diminished in the course of eight centuries. On the first of August, 1905, it

was exactly eight hundred years that the eminent scholar died at Troyes. As is proper, the event was marked

by a commemoration of a literary and scientific character. Articles on Rashi appeared in the Jewish journals

and reviews. Such authorities as Dr. Berliner, Mr. W. Bacher, and others, sketched his portrait and published

appreciations of his works. Dr. Berliner, moreover, issued a new edition of Rashi's Pentateuch Commentary

in honor of the anniversary, and, as was mentioned above, Mr. S. Buber celebrated the occasion by

inaugurating the publication of the hitherto unedited works of Rashi, beginning with the Sefer haOrah.

The beautiful unity of his life and the noble simplicity of his nature make Rashi's personality one of the most

sympathetic in Jewish history. The writings he left are of various kinds and possess various interests for us.

His Decisions and Responsa acquaint us with his personal traits, and with the character of his contemporaries;

his religious poems betray the profound faith of his soul, and his sensitiveness to the woes of his brethren.

But above all Rashi was a commentator. He carved himself a niche from which he has not been removed, and

though his work as a commentator has been copied, it will doubtless remain impossible of absolute imitation.

Rashi, then, is a commentator, though as such he cannot aspire to the glory of masters like Maimonides and

Jehudah haLevi. But the task he set himself was to comment upon the Bible and the Talmud, the two living

sources that feed the great stream of Judaism, and he fulfilled the task in a masterly fashion and conclusively.

Moreover he touched upon nearly all branches of Jewish literature, grammar, exegesis, history, and

archaeology. In short his commentaries became inseparable from the texts they explain. For, if in some

respects his work despite all this may seem of secondary importance and inferior in creative force to the

writings of a Saadia or a Maimonides, it gains enormously in value by the discussion and comment it evoked

Rashi, one may say, is one of the fathers of rabbinical literature, which he stamped with the impress of his

clear, orderly intellect. Of him it could be written: "With him began a new era for Judaism, the era of science

His influence was not limited to scholarly circles. He is one of the rare writers who have had the privilege of

becoming truly popular, and his renown was not tarnished, as that of Maimonides came near being on

account of bitter controversies and violent contests. He was not the aweinspiring master who is followed

from afar; he was the master to whom one always listens, whose words are always read; and the writers who

imitate his work with more or less felicity believe themselves inspired by him. The middle ages knew no

Jewish names more famous than those of Jehudah haLevi and Maimonides; but how many nowadays read

their writings and understand them wholly? The "Diwan" as well as the "Guide of the Perplexed" are

products of Jewish culture grafted upon Arabic culture. They do not unqualifiedly correspond to present ideas

and tastes. Rashi's' work, on the contrary, is essentially and intimately Jewish. Judaism could renounce the

study of the Bible and of that other Bible, the Talmud, only under penalty of intellectual suicide. And since,

added to respect for these two monuments, is the difficulty of understanding them, the commentaries holding

Rashi's writings, therefore, extend beyond the range of merely occasional works, and his influence will not

soon die out. His influence, indeed, is highly productive of results, since his commentaries do not arrest the

march of science, as witness his disciples who enlarged and enriched the ground he had ploughed so

vigorously, and whose fame only adds to the lustre [luster sic] of Rashi's name. The field he commanded was

the entire Jewish culture of France of France, which for a time he turned into the classic land of Biblical

and Talmudic studies. "In him," says M. Israel Levi, "is personified the Judaism of Northern France, with its

scrupulous attachment to tradition, its naive, untroubled faith, and its ardent piety, free from all mysticism."

Nor was Rashi confined to France; his great personality dominated the whole of Judaism. Dr. M. Berliner

writes: "Even nowadays, after eight hundred years have rolled by, it is from him we draw our inspiration,

we who cultivate the sacred literature, it is his school to which we resort, it is his commentaries we study.

These commentaries are and will remain our light in the principal department of our intellectual patrimony."

Doubtless Rashi is but a commentator, yet a commentator without peer by reason of his value and influence.

And, possibly, this commentator represents most exactly, most powerfully, certain general propensities of the

Jewish people and certain main tendencies of Jewish culture. Rashi, then, has a claim, universally recognized,

A critical revision of Rashi's works remains to be made. They were used to such an extent, and, up to the time

when printing gave definiteness to existing diversities, so many copies were made, that some of the works

were preserved in bad shape, others were lost, and others again received successive additions.

1. BIBLICAL COMMENTARIES. They cover nearly all the twenty four books of the Bible.

Job. "On Job the manuscripts are divided into series, according to whether or not they break off at xl. 28 of

the text. The one Series gives Rashi's commentary to the end; the other, on the ground that Rashi's death

prevented him from finishing his work, completes the commentary with that of another rabbi, R. Jacob Nazir"

(Arsene Darmesteter). Geiger attributes this Supplementary commentary, which exists in several versions, to

Samuel ben Meir; others attribute it to Joseph Kara. Some regard it as a compilation; others, again, assert that

Ezra and Nehemiah. Some authors deny that Rashi composed commentaries on Ezra and Nehemiah.

Chronicles. It is certain that the commentary on Chronicles, which does not occur in the good manuscripts,

and which was published for the first time at Naples in 1487, is not to be ascribed to Rashi. This was

observed by so early a writer as Azulal, and it has been clearly demonstrated by Weiss (Kerem Hemed, v.,

232 et seq.). It seems that Rashi did not comment upon Chronicles at all (In spite of Zunz and Weiss).

Concerning the author of the printed commentary there is doubt. According to Zunz (Zur Geschichte und

Literatur, p.73), it must have been composed at Narbonne about 11301140 by the disciples of Saadla (?).

2. TALMUDIC COMMENTARIES. Rashi did not comment on the treatises lacking a Gemara, namely,

Eduyot, Middot (the commentary upon which was written by Shemaiah), and Tamid (in the commentary on

which Rashi is cited). It is calculated that, in all, Rashi commented on thirty treatises (compare Azulai, Shem

Taanit. So early a writer as Emden denied to Rashi the authorship of the commentary on Taanit; and his

conclusions are borne out by the style. There was a commentary on Taanit cited by the Tossafot, which forms

the basis of the present commentary; and this may have belonged to the school of Rashi.

Moed Katan. The commentary on Moed Katan is attributed by Reifmann to Gershom (Monatsschrift, III).

According to B. Zomber (Rashi's Commentary on Nedarim and Moed Katan, Berlin, 1867), who shows that

Gershom's commentary is different, the extant commentary is a first trial of Rashi's and was later recast by

him. This would explain the differences between the commentary under consideration and the one joined to

the En Jacob and to Rif, which is more complete and might be the true commentary by Rashi. These

conclusions have been attacked by Rabbinowicz ( Dikduke Soferim, II), who accepts Reifmann's thesis.

Zomber replied in the Moreh Derek, Lyck, 1870; and Rabbinowicz in turn replied in the Moreh haMoreh,

Munich, 1871. To sum up, both sides agree in saying that the basis of the present commentary was modified

by Rashi or by some one else. According to I. H. Weiss various versions of Rashi's Commentary were

current. The most incomplete is the present one. That accompanying Rif is more complete, though also not

Nedarim. The commentary on Nedarim, from 22b to 25b, may contain a fragment by R. Gershom. Nor, to

judge from the style, does the remainder seem to belong to Rashi. Good writers do not cite it. Reifmann

Nazir. Several critics deny to Rashi the authorship of the commentary on Nazir. Although there are no

strong reasons for so doing, the doubt exists; for differences are pointed out between this and the other

commentaries. P. Chajes holds that Rashi's disciples are responsible for the commentaries on Nedarim and

Zebahim. The commentary on Zebahim is corrupt and has undergone interpolations; but there are no strong

Baba Batra. Rashbam completed his grandfather's commentary on Baba Batra from 29a on, or, rather, later

writers supplemented Rashi's commentary with that of his grandson. This supplement is to be found at the

Makkot. The commentary on Makkot, from 19b on, was composed by Judah ben Nathan (see note in the

editions). It seems that a commentary on the whole by Rashi was known to Yomtob ben Abraham.

Horaiot. The commentary on Horaiot was not written by Rashi (Reifmann, HaMaggid xxi. 4749).

Meilah. It is more certain that the commentary on Meilah was not written by Rashi. Numerous errors and

additions have been pointed out. According to a manuscript of Halberstamm it would belong to Judah ben

Keritot and Bekorot. The commentary on Keritot is not Rashi's, and that on Bekorot, after 57b, according to

3. PIRKE ABOT. The commentary on the Pirke Abot, printed for the first time at Mentone In 1560, was

cited by Simon ben Zemah Duran (d. 1444) as being by Rashi. But Jacob Emden (d. 1776) denies Rashi's

authorship, and justly so. One manuscript attributes the commentary to Isaiah da Trani, another to Kimhi.

Though the numerous copies present differences, it is not impossible that they are derived from a common

source, which might be Rashi's commentary; for despite some diffuseness in certain passages, the present

commentary is in his style. The Italian laazim may have been made by Italian copyists.

4. BERESHIT RABRAH. The commentary on Bereshit Rabbah. According to A. Epstein (Magazin of

Berliner, xiv. HaHoker I), this commentary, incorrectly printed (the first time at Venice, 1568), is

composed of two different commentaries. The basis of the first is the commentary of Kalonymos ben

Sabbatai, of Rome; the second is anonymous and of later date. A third commentary exists in manuscript, and

Mention should be made of a commentary on the Thirtytwo Rules by R. Jose haGelili, attributed to Rashi

5.RESPONSA.The Responsa of Rashi have not becn gathered together into one collection. Some Responsa

mixed with some of his decisions occur in the compilations already cited and in the following Halakic

compilations: Eben haEzer by Eliezer ben Nathan (Prague, 1670), Or Zarua by Isaac ben Moses of Vienna

(III. Zhitomir, 1862; IIIV, Jerusalem, 1887), Shibbole haLeket by Zedekiah ben Abraham Anaw (Wilna,

1887, ed. Buber), Mordecai, by Mordecal ben Hillel (printed together with Rif), Responsa by Meir of

Rothenberg (Cremona, 1557; Prague, 1608; Lemberg, 1860; Berlin, 189192; Budapest, 1896), etc. (see

6. In rabbinical literature we find quotations from Responsa collections bearing upon special points in

Talmudic law, such as ablutions, the making and the use of Tefillin, the Zizit , the order of the Parashiot, the

blessing of the priests, the ceremony of the Passover eve, the slaughter of animals, the case of diseased

7. These collections have penetrated in part into the SEFER HA PARDES, the MAHZOR VITRY, and the

other compilations mentioned in chap. IX. Upon this point see chap. IX and articles by A. Epstein and S.

8. THE LITURGICAL POEMS by Rashi, some of which are printed in the collections of Selihot of the

German ritual, are enumerated by Zunz in Synagogale Poesie des Mittelalters, Berlin, 1865, pp.2524.

Three books have been wrongly attributed to Rashi: a medical work, Sefer haRefuah; a grammatical work,

Leshon Limmudim, actually composed by Solomon ben Abba Mari of Lunel; and an entirely fanciful

1. THE BIBLICAL COMMENTARIES 1. According to A. Darmesteter "twenty different editions have

been counted of Rashi's commentary, complete or partial, without the Hebrew text. As for the editions

containing the Bible together with Rashi's commentary, their number amounts to seventeen complete editions

and 155 partial editions, of the latter of which 114 are for the Pentateuch alone." The list of these editions is

to be found in Furst, Bibliotheca judaica (Leipsic, 1849, 2d vol. 1851), II, pp. 78 et seq.; Steinschneider,

Catalogue of the Hebrew Books in the Bodleian Library (Berlin, 18521860), col. 234057; Ben Jakob, Ozar

haSefarim (Wilna, 1887), pp.629 et seq. The first two works enumerate also the super commentaries on

II. Latin Translations. Besides numerous partial translations, also listed in the works of Furst and

Steinschneider, a complete translation exists by J. F. Breithaupt, Gotha, 1710 (Pentateuch) and 17131714

III. German Translations. L. Haymann, R. Solomon Iarchi. Ausfuhrlicher Commentar uber den Pentateuch.

1st vol., Genesis, Bonn, 1883, in German characters and without the Hebrew text. Leopold Dukes, Rashi zum

Pentateuch, Prague, 18331838, in Hebrew characters and with the Hebrew text opposite. J. Dessaner, a

translation into JudaeoGerman with a vowelled text, Budapest, 1863. Some fragmentary translations into

2. THE TALMUDIC COMMENTARIES. All the editions of the Talmud contain Rashi's commentary. Up

to the present time fortyfive complete editions of the Talmud have been counted.

3. RESPONSA. Some Responsa addressed to the rabbis of Auxerre were published by A. Geiger, Melo

Hofnaim, Berlin, 1840. Twentyeight Responsa were edited by B. Goldberg, Hofes Matmonim , Berlin, 1845,

thirty by J. Muller, Reponses faites par de celebres rabbins francais et lorrains des xie et xiie siecles, Vienna,

1881. Some isolated Responsa were published in the collection of Responsa of Judah ben Asher (50a, 52b),

Berlin, 1846, in the Ozar Nehmad II, 174, in BetTalmud II, pp.296 and 341, at the end of the study on Rashi

4. THE SEFER HAPARDES was printed at Constantinople in 1802 according to a defective copy. The

editor Intercalated fragments of the Sefer haOrah, which he took from an often illegible manuscript.

THE MAHEOR VITRY, the existence of which was revealed by Luzzatto, was published according to a

defective manuscript of the British Museum, under the auspices of the literary Society Mekize Nirdamim , by

Book I. Chap. 1. On the situation of the Jews In France in general, the following works may be read with

profit: Zunz, Zur Geschichte und Literatur, Berlin, 1845. Gudemann, Geschichte des Erziehungswesens und

der Cultur der Juden in Frankreich und Deutschland, Vienna, 1880, 8 (Hebrew translation by Frledberg

Abrahams, Jewish Life in the Middle Ages, Jewish Publication Society of America, Philadelphia, 1896.

Concerning Gershom ben Judah, see Gross, Gallia judaica, Paris, 1897, pp.299 et seq.

Chap. IIIV.Works in general. Besides the accounts of Rashi in the works of the historians of the Jewish

people and literature (especially Graetz, Geschichte der Juden, Leipsic, 1861, vol. vi; English translation

published by the Jewish Publication Society of America, Philadelphia, 1895, vols. iii and iv; Hebrew

translation by L. Rabbinovitch, Warsaw, 1894, vol. iv), there are two most important studies of Rashi:

1. Zunz, Salomon ben Isaac, genannt Rascht, in Zunz's Zeitschrift fur die Wissenschaft des Judenthums,

1823, pp277384. Additions by Zunz himself in the preface to Gottesdienstliche Vortrage, and in the

catalogue of the library at Leipsic, by Berliner in the Monatsschrift xi and xii, by Klein, ibid . xi. One

appreciates the originality of this study all the more if one reads in the Histoire litteraire de la France, xvi.,

the passage in which are collected all the legends retailed concerning Rashi in the world of Christian scholars

Zunz's essay was translated into Hebrew and enriched with notes by Samson Bloch, Vita R. Salomon Isaki,

Lemberg 1840, 8. Second edition by Hirschenthal, Warsaw, 1862. The essay was abridged by Samuel Cahen

in the Journal de l'Institut historique, I, and plagiarized by the Abbe Etienne Georges, Le rabbin Salomon

Raschi (sic) in the Annuaire administratif . . . . du departement de l'Aube, 1868. Compare ClementMullet,

Documents pour servir a l'histoire du rabbin Salomon fils de Isaac in the Memoires de la Societe

2. I. H. Weiss, R. Salomon bar Isaac (in Hebrew), in the Bet Talmud II, 188182, Nos. 210 (cf. iii. 81).

Off print under the title Biographien juldiseher Gelehrten, 2nd leaflet, Vienna, 1882.

Other works on Rashi are: M. H. Friedlaender, Raschi, in Judisches Litteraturblatt, xvii. M. Grunwald,

Book II. Chap. V. Concerning the laazim see A. Darmesteter in the Romania I.(1882), and various other

essays reprinted in the Reliques scientifiques, Paris, 1890, vol. i. The deciphering of the laazim by Berliner in

his edition of the commentary on the Pentateuch is defective, and that of Landau in his edition of the Talmud

(Prague, 1829; 2d ed., 1839) is still more inadequate. A. Darmesteter's essay on the laazim of all the Biblical

Chap. VI. On Moses haDarshan there is a monograph by A. Epstein, Vienna 1891; and on Menahem ben

Concerning the Biblical commentaries see: A.Geiger, Nite Naamanim, oder Sammlung aus alten schatzbaren

Antoine Levy, Die Exegese bei den franzosischen Juden vom 10 bis 14 Jahrhundert (translated from the

Nehemiah Kronberg, Raschi als Exeget . . . , Halle [1882]. In Winter und Wunsehe, Die judische Litteratur,

Chap. VII. See especially the above mentioned essay of Weiss, and by the same author, Dor Dor

In Winter und Wunsche ibid. ii, Die Halacha in Italien, Frankreich und Deutschland, by A. Kaminka.

Chap. VIII. A. Berliner, Zur Charakteristik Raschi's in Gedenkbuch zur Erinnerung an D.

Chap. X. Zunz, Die Synagogale Poesie, Berlin, 1855. ClementMullet, Poesies ou Selichot attribuees a

Raschi, in the Memoires de la Societe academique de l'Aube, xx; published by itself, Troyes, 1856.

Book III. Chaps. XIXII. The history of Rashi's influence forms part of the general history of later

rabbinical literature. Mention, therefore, may be made of the following works, besides the history of Graetz,

the works of Geiger and of A. Levy, and the references in Winter und Wunsche, II:

Renan [and Neubauer], Les rabbins francais (Histoire litteraire de la France), Paris, 1877.

It is impossible to enumerate all the monographs and all the magazine articles. Concerning Samuel b. Meir,

see Rosin, R. Samuel ben Meir als Schrifterklarer, Breslau, 1880; concerning Jacob Tam, see Weiss,

Rabbenu Tam, in the Bet Talmud, iii; concerning Jacob b. Simson, see Epstein in the Revue des etudes juives,

xxxv, pp.240 et seq.; concerning Shemaiah, see A. Epstein in the Monatsschrift, xli, pp.257, 296, 564;

concerning Simson b. Abraham, see H. Gross in the Revue des etudes juives, vii and viii; concerning Judah

The influence of Rashi upon Nicholas de Lyra and Luthcr is the subject of an essay by Siegfried in Archiv fur

wissenschaftliche Erforsehung des Alten Testaments, i and ii. For Nicholas de Lyra alone, see Neumann in

Concerning Rashi's descendants, see Epstein, Mishpahat Luria et KohenZedek in HaGoren, i, Appendix.

1 See W. Bacher, Raschi una Maimuni, Monatsschrift, XLIX, pp 1 et seq. Also D. Yellin and I. Abrahams,

2 A legend has it that Vespasian made some Jews embark on three vessels, which were then abandoned on

the open sea. One of the ships reached Aries, another Lyons, and the third Bordeaux. See Gross, Gallia

6 In the first quarter of the eleventh century Burchard, bishop of Worms, wrote the famous compilation which

became one of the sources of canonical law. Concerning Lorraine, its Jews and Talmudical schools, see chap.

9 Not, as has been said with more ingenuity than verity, from Rosh Shibte Iehudah, chief of the tribes of

Judah. Others, transposing the letters of "Rashi," called him Yashar, "the Just." He himself signed his name

Solomon bar (not ben) Isaac, or Berabi Isaac. Once he wrote his signature Solomon of Troyes.

10 Since "lune," moon, in Hebrew "yerah," is contained in "Lunel," a number of scholars coming from Lunel

bore the surname "Yarhi." The city, in fact, is sometimes called "Jericho," as a result of that system of

geographical nomenclature to which we owe the name "Kiryat Yearim" for Nimes (derived from the Latin

nemus), and "Har" for Montpellier, etc. Through an analogy, based not so much upon the significance of the

words as upon a sort of assonance, Spain, France, and Britain in rabbinical literature received the Hebrew

names of Sefarad, Zarfat, and Rifat. Likewise the city of Dreux is called Darom, and so on.

11 A spurious Rashi genealogy from Johanan haSandlar was worked out in Italy at the end of the

seventeenth century. In Appendix I is given a table of the connections and immediate descendants of Rashi.

In chap. XII, p. 212 et seq. there are references concerning some of his later and more doubtful descendants.

13 See pp.612. Also Berliner, Aus dem Leben der deutschen Juden. The data that follow are taken from the

Kolbo, the Mahzor Vitry, and other sources cited by Zunz, Zur Geschichte, pp.167 et seq.

16 This is the epoch which marks the arrival of Jews in Great Britain. They went there, it seems, In the suite

of William the Conqueror (1066) They always remained in touch with their coreligionists on the

Continent, and were sometimes called by these "the Jews of the Island." For a while they enjoyed great

prosperity, which, joined to their religious propaganda, drew upon them the hatred of the clergy. Massacred

in 1190, exploited and utterly ruined in the thirteenth century, they were finally exiled in 1290.

18 Surnamed "Segan Leviya," supposeddoubtless incorreetlyto have come originally from Vitry in

Champagne. He was a very conscientious pupil of Eliezer the Great. Died about 1070.

19 He is the author of the famous Aramaic poem read at the Pentecost, beginning with the words Akdamot

Millin. He must not be confounded with his contemporary of the same name, Meir ben Isaac (of Orleans?), to

whom also some liturgic poems are attributed. Another rabbi of Orleans, Isaac ben Menahem (according to

Gross, Gallia judaica, pp.323, probably the father of Meir), was older than Rashi, who quotes some of his

Talmudic explanations, and some of the notes written on his copy of the Talmud. There is nothing to prove,

as Gross maintains, that Rashi was his pupil. It is not even certain that he knew him personally.

21 A Responsum signed by Rashi shows that he was the tutor of the children of a certain Joseph, whose

22 For a long time it was thought and said that once when Rashi was sick, he dictated a Responsum to his

daughter. As Zunz was the first to show, this story about Rashi's secretary is based upon the faulty reading of

a text. Another legend proved false! Science is remorseless. See Sefer ha Pardes, ed. Constantinople, 33d,

where one must read, uleven bat (Vav Lamed Bet Final_Nun, Bet Tav) not velajen biti (Vav Lamed Kaf

Final_Nun, Bet Tav Yod) See Zunz, Zur Geschichte, p. 567, and Berliner, Hebraische Bibliographie, XI;

23 As has been shown (chap. II, p.51) Rashi may have begun to write commentaries upon the Talmud during

his sojourn In Lorraine. However that may be, it is difficult to dlstinguish in this huge production between the

24 That is to say "very beautiful." It is a name frequently borne by French Jewesses in the middle ages. Some

give the name of her husband as Ephraim. In chap. XI, pp.187 et seq. the sonsinlaw and grandchildren of

25 According to Jacob Molin haLevi, called Maharli, rabbi of Mayence, later of Worms, where he died in

1427. Christian marriages bore many points of resemblance to Jewish marriages. See the work of Lecoy de la

27 The economic influence of the Crusades has also been exaggerated. The Crusaders in Palestine came into

relations with scarcely no other Turks than those but slightly civilized, and thus saw little of the brilliant

Arabic civilization. The Jews certainly contributed more than the Crusades to the development of commerce

28 According to a less popular form of the legend, Godfrey of Bouillon disguised himself as a beggar, and

obtained entrance into Rashi's home by asking for alms. But the night before, the visit of the lord had been

announced to Rashi in a dream, and on his approach Rashi arose and hailed him by the title of hero. It was in

this way that Joan of Arc recognized Charles VII lost in the crowd of his courtiers.

29 See chap. VIII, pp.164 et seq. for further details. The same chapter throws more light on Rashi's spiritual

32 The mistake arises from the fact that certain cursive writing is called "Rashi script." It was generally

employed in copying rabbinical works, among others, the works of Rashi. The term indicates the wide

35 The Megillat Taanit is a collection of ephemerides or calendars, indicating the days on which happy

events occurred, and on which it is forbidden to fast. The little work, written in Aramaic, but enlarged by

Hebrew glosses, is attributed by the Talmud to Hananiah ben Hezekiah ben Garon, or Gorion (first century);

the nucleus about which the book was built up seems to go back as far as Maccabean times.

37 Collection of texts not incorporated in the Mlshnah, the order of which is followed, now to explain it, now

to complement it, and sometimes to contradict it. The redaction of the Tosefta is attributed to R. Hiyyah bar

38 When the aim of the Midrash is to interpret the legal and ritual portions of the Pentateuch, it is called

Halakic; it is Haggadic when its aim is to interpret the narrative and moral portions (see chap. VI, p.107)

The Halakic Midrashim nevertheless contain much Haggadah. The redaction of the Mekilta, the commentary

on Exodus, is attributed to R. Ishmael; that of the Sifra, or Torat Kohanim, the commentary on Leviticus, to

R. Judah ben Ilai; that of the Sifre, the commentary on Numbers and Deuteronomy, to R. Simon ben Yohai

and to the school of Rab, all scholars of the second and third centuries. The Sifra that Rashi employed was

more complete than the one now available, and he cites a second Sifre, at present unknown.

39 The Midrash Rabba, or Rabbot, consists of Haggadic compilations on the Pentateuch and the Five Rolls;

the elements of this Midrash are comparatively ancient, but its definite redaction without doubt does not go

farther back than the eighth century. Rashi did not know those portions of the Midrash Rabba which explain

40 By this name are designated Haggadic collections for various distinguished times and seasons of the year.

There are two Pesiktas, the Pesikta attributed to R. Kahana, a Babylonian Talmudist, though its redaction

falls in the seventh century, and the Pesikta Rabbati, or Great Pesikta, doubtless compiled in Southern Italy in

the ninth century. Rashi knew the first of these collections; and his citations aided Zunz in the reconstruction

he made of this Midrash before the discovery of a manuscript by Buber confirmed his clearsighted

41 Name of a Midrash on the Pentateuch, redacted by the pupils of R. Tanhuma. Quite recently the endeavor

was made to prove that Rashi did not know the Tanhuma either in the current text or in the more extended

text published by Buber in 1885, and that he called Tanhuma the Midrash Yelamdenu, which is lost, and

which is said to be the prototype of the two versions of the Tanhuma. See Grunhut, in Festschrift

42 A Midrashic compilation, partly mystic in character, of the eighth century, but attributed to the Tanna R.

43 Collection in three "gates," relating to history, especially to Biblical chronology. Its redaction is

44 Sherira bar Hananiah, Gaon of Pumbedita, about 9301000, a scholar of great activity, who left Responsa.

The one bearing upon the chronology of the Talmudic and Gaonic periods is the chief source for the history

45 Hai Gaon, born about 940, collaborator, then successor, of his father. He wrote much, and his reputation

reached Europe. Philosopher, scholar, didactic poet, and commentator of the Bible, he left authoritative

Responsa, Talmudic commentaries, collections of rabbinical jurisprudence, and a Hebrew dictionary, which

46 Aha or Ahai of Shabha wrote, about 760, one hundred and ninetyone Sheeltot (Questions), casuistic

47 Yehudai bar Nahman, Gaon of Sura (about 759 or 762), eminent Talmudist and adversary of the Karaites.

He wrote Responsa and possibly the Halakot, a collection of legal and ritual rules. He is said to have been

48 Isaac Abrabanel was possibly the only Jew who unmasked Josephus and revealed his lies and flatteries.

Judah Sir Leon (see chap. XI, p.194) recognized that Kalir was not identical with the Tanna Eleazar ben

49 Of Tahort, Northern Africa. He lived at the end of the ninth century and the beginning of the tenth.

51 Exception can scarcely be made in favor of the preamble to the Song of Songs and the shorter one to

Zechariah. In the one he briefly characterizes the Haggadic method; in the other he speaks of the visions of

52 At the end of the gloss the explanations of Menahem ben Saruk and Dunash ben Labrat are reproduced.

This is without doubt a later addition. For these two Spanish grammarians, see Note 91.

58 Evidently it was not Rashi who commented on the work of Alfasi, his contemporary. It was a German

Jew, who abridged the commentary of the French rabbi in order to make it harmonize with the work of the

illustrious Spanish Talmudist. For several treatises the German Jew had more authentic texts than are now

available. He sometimes cites Rashi by name. See J. Perles, Die Berner Handschrift des kleinen Aruch, in

55 The GalloRoman dialects are divided into two groups, the dialects of the langue d'oc (southern) and

those of the langue d'oil (northern). It was Dante who introduced this somewhat irrational distinction based

upon the different ways of saying "yes," that is, oc and oil (Latin, hoc and ille).

56 In the middle of the eleventh century, it must be added, differences between neighboring dialects were not

57 James Darmesteter, Introduction to the Reliques scientifiques, of his brother Arsene Darmesteter (Paris,

58 Eliezer ben Nathan, of Mayence (about 1145), correspondent of Meir and of his sons Samuel and Jacob,

author of the work Eben haEzer, whence the passage quoted has been taken (Pp. 107, p. 36a).

59 The Persian word Parshandata, name of one of the sons of Haman, was divided into Parshan and

data, "expounder of the Law." This epithet is applied to Rashi in the poem attributed to Ibn Ezra, cited in

60 Rashi seems also to have known about the Targum of the PseudoJonathan upon the Pentateuch. See Note

61 Concerning the development of Biblical studies in general, among Jews as well as Christians, see pp.127

64 Psalms cxi. 6. Rashi cites the Biblical verses themselves, often only in part; but he did not know the

division of the Bible into chapters and verses, which was made at a later day and was of Christian origin.

Sometimes Rashi cites a verse by indicating the weekly lesson in which it occurs, or by giving the paragraph

67 The rule, however, has exceptions. Even according to Rashi's opinion, the word is in the absolute in Dent.

xxxiii. 21 and Is. xlvi. 10. It is true that strictly speaking one might say the exceptions are only apparent.

69 For the meaning of this expression, see p. 107. The source here is still the Talmudic treatise Sanhedrin

72 This interpretation, taken without doubt from PseudoJonathan (see Note 60), explains the demonstrative

74 Still according to the Mekilta. The Song of Songs is often applied by Jewish exegetes to the events of the

75 The French laaz is corrupted in the editions. The reading should be peri shnt (Pe Resh Yod, Shin Noon fol

77 Without doubt the murex, which gives the purple dye. The details are taken from the Talmud (treatise

83 lb. and 15. The first of these passages is noteworthy, Rashi says about It: "If I tried to explain how these

two objects are made according to the text, the explanation would be fragmentary, and the reader would not

get an idea of the whole. So I will first give a complete description of them, to which the reader can refer.

After that I will explain the text verse by verse. The ephod resembles the robe worn by the Amazons,'" etc.

85 This is a distinction made in Hebrew but not rendered in the English version.

87 And not "shadow of death," which is etymologically impossible, though it is a rendition employed by most

89 Collection of Midrashim long attributed to Simon Kara, father of a disciple of Rashi. This valuable

compilation, which deals with the entire Bible, dates without doubt from the first half of the thirteenth

century. An unsuccessful attempt has been made to prove that Rashi knew the Yalkut. His silence shows, on

the contrary, that it was a later work. The Simon (sometimes Simson) whom he quotes is not the author of the

91 Menahem ben Saruk, of Tortosa, lived at Cordova about 960 with the celebrated minister and Maecenas,

the Jew Hasdai Ibn Shaprut. He was the author of the Mahberet, one of the first complete lexicons of the

His rival, Dunash ben Labrat, born at Fez, was both poet and grammarian. He wrote "Refutations" against

Menahem, in rhyme and prose, which were full of impassioned criticisms and abundantly displayed fresh,

correct insight. The polemics of these two scholars were continued by their disciples and were ended by

92 AbulWalid Merwan ibn Djanah (among the Jews, R. Jonah), the most eminent representative of the

Spanish school, born at Cordova about 985; he studied at Lucena, and died at Saragossa about 1050. Besides

small polemic works, he left a long one, "The Book of Detailed Research," including a grammar and a

dictionary. Ibn Dianab was an original and profound grammarian. Unfortunately his disciples in popularizing

Judah ben David (Abu Zakaria Yahia lbn Dand) Hayyoudj, who may be looked upon as the master of Djanah,

was originally from Fez but lived for the greater time at Cordova (end of the tenth and beginning of the

eleventh century). He inspired remarkable disciples, among others the statesman Samuel haNaggid Ibn

Nagdela. He was the first to discover the triliteral character of all Hebrew roots.

93 Abraham ben Meir Ibn Ezra (10921167), born at Toledo, died at Rome. He left Spain in about his

fortieth year, and travelled through Europe, reaching also Asia and Africa. The European countries he visited

are Italy, France, England, and the Provence. It was on his second visit to Italy that he died at Rome. He

wrote for his living and by way of compensation to his hosts. He was a philosopher, excellent mathematician,

clever poet, and highly subjective writer. In the domain of philology he brought to the knowledge of

Christian Europe the works of his great predecessors, and if he was not a very original grammarian, he was at

least a clearsighted exegete. His Biblical commentaries are held in high esteem.

Concerning Rashi and Ibn Ezra see also chap. XI, pp. 2067, and chap. XII, p. 220.

94 At this point I think it well to give once for all a summing up of Talmudic literature. The Talmud is the

united mass of the documents and texts of the oral law. It comprises the Mishnah and the Gemara, the latter

being called also Talmud. The Mishnah, a collection in six parts and fortynine treatises, is the work of

numerous generations of scholars. Its final redaction (setting aside somewhat later additions) was made by

Judah the Saint, or Rabbi (about 150210). The texts not incorporated by Rabbi are called Baraitas. The

Gemara is the commentary and the development of the Mishnab, which it follows step by step, in discussing

it and completing its statements. There are two Gemara collections: one elaborated in Palestine under the

influence of R. Johanan (199279) and terminated toward the end of the fourth century, which Is called the

Palestinian or Jerusalem Talmud; the other drawn up in Babylonia under the influence of Rab and of Samuel

(third century), and brought to a conclusion about 500 through the initiative of R. Ashi and his disciples; this

Is called the Babylonian Talmud. The latter covers the greater part of the Mishnah. It is by far the more

important of the two Talmuds from the juridic point of view, and it is the one that has been the chief subject

of studies and commentaries. The Talmud comprises two elements: the Halakah, "rule of conduct,"

legislation, and the Haggadah, "exposition," which embraces nonHalakic exegesis, history, legend, profane

learning, etc. The scholars whose discussions are given in the Mishnah are called Tannaim, and those who

97 Hananel ben Hushiel, of Kairnan, first half of the eleventh century, commented upon the Talmud and the

98 This false notion gained currency through the existence of Responsa addressed by Nathan to a certain

Solomon ben Isaac: but this Solomon is an Italian. See Vogelstein and Rieger, Geschichte der Juden in

Rom, I, pp.366 et seq. For further Information concerning Nathan ben Jehiel, see Note 121. With regard to

recurring names for different individuals the plague of Jewish literature it should be said that a French

rabbi named Solomon ben Isaac lived about a century after Rashi, who corresponded with R. Tam. He has

been confounded with his illustrious predecessor of the same name. See Gross, Gallia judaica, p. 34.Buber,

100 Another name for the Sadduceans, from their chief Boethus (first century of the Common Era)

101 Psalm lxxxi. 5, which refers to the new moon. Now, in every case at least two witnesses are necessary.

105 Sukkah 32b. These references placed In parentheses in Rashi's commentary are the work of the printers,

who adopted the conventional division into folios. Rashi refers only to the treatise or chapter, at most simply

113 Concerning Hananel, see Note 97. R. Isaac b. Jacob alFasi (the initials form Rif) was born in 1013 near

Fez, whence his name. In 1088 he went to Spain, where he directed the important school of Lucena. He died

in 1103, lamented by all his fellowcitizens. Besides Responsa, he left the "Halakot," or "Little Talmud,"

which Is a pruning down of the entire Talmud, so as to present only what is useful for establishing the norm,

deduced by Alfasi himself. It is an important work, which still enjoys great authority. I have already

remarked (Note 53) that the Rashi commentary was abridged to make it fit the text of Rif.

115 Parasang is a Persian measure equivalent to 5250 metres [meters sic], a fact of which Rashi seems to

117 In the first case it refers to Ahriman, the spirit of evil, in the second, to Ormuzd, the spirit of good among

the Persians. Lillit in Oriental mythology is a female demon, who wanders at night and attacks chiefly

118 Isaac ben Judah, his master par excellence. Concerning Rashi's teachers see chap. I, p.29; chap. II, pp.49

120 David Ibn Abi Zimra (Radbaz), rabbi of Cairo, who died, it is said, at Safed in 1589 at the age of 110

121 Nathan ben Jehiel, of Rome, born about 1035, died In the first years of the twelfth century, author of the

Aruk, a highly valued Talmudic dictionary, In which he explains the words of Talmudic and Midrasbic

literature, as well as the Halakic and Haggadic passages presenting difficulties. The numerous quotations are

122 Quoted from Bezalel Ashkenazl, who lived In Egypt (died in 1530). He compiled a Talmudic collection

called Shitta Mekubezet, in which he gathered together extracts from French, Spanish, and other rabbis.

Before him Isaac ben Sheshet (see Note 150) had said: "The greatest light that has come to us from France is

Rashi. Without his commentary, the Talmud would be a closed book" (Responsa, No.394).

123 Menahem ben Zerah (about 13121385), son of a Jew expelled from France, wrote in Spain a Talmudic

124 ConcernIng Rashi's correspondents see chap. II, pp. 512, and chap. III, p.57.

127 And not, as has been supposed, that of Cavaillon, In the county Venaissin, where, possibly, there were

not yet any Jews, and where, at all events, Rashi was not known, as was the case throughout the south of

129 This resume is taken from Epstein on Shemaiah, in Monatsschrift, XLI, also that of Sefer

haOrah. Concerning the Machirites, see chap. I, p.29, and chap. II, p.52; concerning Shemaiah, chap. XI,

pp.1867. The three communities are sometimes called by the initials of their names, "communities of Shum"

In connection with the Sefer haPardes must be mentioned the work bearing the title of Likkute ha

Pardes (Extracts from Paradise), a compilation edited in Italy by the disciples of Isaiah da Trani.

134 Rameru, or Ramerupt, situated six miles from Troyes on a tributary of the Aube. Of old it formed an

entire county, proof of which is furnished by the ditches surrounding it and the ruins of a castellated

stronghold. At the present day it is the chief city of the Departement de l'Aube.

135 The sort of literature designated by this word will be defined later on, pp.1912.

139 It has been said that "Tossafot" signifies "supplements to Rashi;" this is not true, but it is noteworthy that

140 Dampierre on the Aube, at present part of the canton of Rameru, counted, after the twelfth century,

141 The name "Morel," customary among English Jews, corresponds to the Hebrew name "Samuel."

143 The numeric value of the letters composing the word Gan in Hebrew is 53, the number of Pentateuch

146 David Kimhi (11601235), of Narbonne, a philosopher, a follower of Maimonides, a grammarian, and an

exegete, who popularized the works of the Spaniards by his Biblical commentaries, his grammar, and his

dictionary. He enjoyed and still enjoys a deserved reputation for clearness and simplicity.

147 Moses ben Nahman, also called Bonastruc da Porta, born at Gerona in 1195, was a Talmudist, Kabbalist,

philosopher, and physician. In 1263 he carried on a disputation at Barcelona with the apostate Pablo

Christiano. On this account he went to live in Palestine, where he died in 1270. His was one of the most

148 Solomon ben Abraham ben Adret (12351310), born at Barcelona, rabbi and head of an influential

school there. The extent of his knowledge as well as his moderation won for him a wide reputation, proof of

which is afforded by his intervention as arbiter in the quarrel between the partisans and the adversaries of

Maimonides, and by his numerous Responsa, of which about three thousand have been published. Besides, he

149 Asher ben Jehiel, disciple of Meir of Rothenburg, born about 1250, died in 1327 at Toledo, where he was

rabbi. Besides numerous and important Responsa he wrote Talmudic commentaries and a compendium of the

150 His initials read Ribash (13361408). He exercised rabbinical functions in several cities of Spain. After

the persecutions of 1391, he went to Algiers, where he was appointed rabbi. He was wellinformed in

philosophy, but he owes his great reputation chiefly to his Talmudic knowledge, as is proved by his

151 Rashbaz, born in 1361 on Majorca, of a family originally from the Provence. At first he practiced

medicine, but, reduced to poverty by the persecutions of 1391, he resigned himself, not without scruples, to

accepting the emoluments of a rabbi. He died in 1444 at Algiers, where he had been the coworker, then the

successor, of Ribash. He is known chiefly for his commentaries and his Responsa. The passage in question is

154 The daughter of Solomon Luria married a brother of the famous Talmudist of Cracow, Moses Isserles

(15301572) I will add that the families of Treves, Pollak, Heller, and Katzenelienbogen also maintain that

they are connected with Rashi. On the descendants of Rashi, see Epstein, Mishpahat Lurie

156 This defective edition was replaced by a good critical edition by David Rosin (Breslan, 1881)

158 Abraham Geiger, born in 1810 at Frankfort, died at Berlin in 1874, one of the finest Jewish scholars of

the nineteenth century. His prolific activity was exerted in all provinces of Jewish history and literature.

Besides works upon the Talmud, the poets, the philosophers, and the exegetes of the middle ages, he wrote

numerous articles in two journals, which he successively edited. Theologian and distinguished preacher, he

159 Wolf Heidenheim (17571832), Talmudist, Hebrew scholar, and editor. He deserves the sobriquet of the

Henri Estienne of Hebrew letters. The commentary in which he defends Rashi is entitled Habanat

160 Isaac Hirsch Weiss (18151905), professor at the Bet ha Midrash of Vienna, wrote many studies

scattered through two literary magazines edited by him successively, and also an Important History of Jewish

161 Solomon Judah Rapoport, born in 1790, died rabbi of Prague in 1867. Together with Zunz, he was the

founder of modern Jewish science. A distinguished man of letters, he was known above all for his

biographies of celebrated rabbis, for historic and archaeologic studies, and for an unfinished encyclopedia.

162 Zechariah Frankel, born at Prague in 1801, after 1854 director of the Seminary at Breslau, where he died

in 1875. He left historic studies on the MosaicTalmudic law, introductions to the Septuagint, the Jerusalem

Talmud, and the Mishnah, and numerous critical and historical works in the Programs of the Seminary and in

18. CHAFTER XI. FROM RASHI'S DEATH TO THE EXPULSION OF THE JEWS FROM FRANCE, page = 69

19. CHAPTER XII. FROM THE EXPULSION OF THE JEWS FROM FRANCE TO THE PRESENT TIME, page = 79