Hubbry Logo
RashiRashiMain
Open search
Rashi
Community hub
Rashi
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Rashi
Rashi
Rashi
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Shlomo Yitzchaki[a] (c. 22 February 1040 – 13 July 1105), commonly known by the Rabbinic acronym Rashi,[b] was a French rabbi and commentator who authored comprehensive commentaries on the Talmud and Hebrew Bible.

Key Information

Born in Troyes, Rashi studied Torah studies in Worms under German rabbi Yaakov ben Yakar and French rabbi Isaac ben Eliezer Halevi, both of whom were pupils of the famed scholar Gershom ben Judah. After returning to Troyes, Rashi joined the beth din, began answering halakhic questions and later served as the beth din's head after the death of Zerach ben Abraham.

Rashi is generally considered a leading biblical exegete in the Middle Ages. Acclaimed for his ability to present the basic meaning of the text in a concise and lucid fashion, Rashi's commentaries appeal to both learned scholars and beginning students, and his works remain a centerpiece of contemporary Torah study. A large fraction of rabbinic literature published since the Middle Ages discusses Rashi, either using his view as supporting evidence or debating against it. His commentary on the Talmud, which covers nearly all of the Babylonian Talmud, has been included in every edition of the Talmud since its first printing by Daniel Bomberg in the 1520s. His commentaries on the Tanakh—especially his commentary on the Chumash (the "Five Books of Moses")—serves as the basis of more than 300 "supercommentaries" which analyze Rashi's choice of language and citations, penned by some of the greatest names in rabbinic literature.

Name

[edit]

Rashi's surname, Yitzhaki, derives from his father's name, Yitzhak. The acronym "Rashi" stands for Rabbi Shlomo Yitzhaki, but is sometimes fancifully expanded as Rabban Shel YIsrael which means the "Rabbi of Israel", or as Rabbenu SheYichyeh (Our Rabbi, may he live). He may be cited in Hebrew and Aramaic texts as (1) "Shlomo son of Rabbi Yitzhak", (2) "Shlomo son of Yitzhak", (3) "Shlomo Yitzhaki", and myriad similar highly respectful derivatives.[2]

In older literature, Rashi is sometimes referred to as Jarchi or Yarhi (ירחי‎), his abbreviated name being interpreted as Rabbi Shlomo Yarhi. This was understood to refer to the Hebrew name of Lunel in Provence, popularly derived from the occitan luna "moon", in Hebrew ירח‎,[3] in which Rashi was assumed to have lived at some time[4] or to have been born, or where his ancestors were supposed to have originated.[5] Later Christian writers Richard Simon[6] and Johann Christoph Wolf[7] claimed that only Christian scholars referred to Rashi as Jarchi, and that this epithet was unknown to the Jews. Bernardo de Rossi, however, demonstrated that Hebrew scholars also referred to Rashi as Yarhi.[8] In 1839, Leopold Zunz[9] showed that the Hebrew usage of Jarchi was an erroneous propagation of the error by Christian writers, instead he interpreted the abbreviation as: Rabbi Shlomo Yitzhaki. The evolution of this term has been thoroughly traced.[10][11]

Biography

[edit]

Birth and early life

[edit]

Rashi was an only child born at Troyes, Champagne, in northern France. His mother's brother was Simeon bar Isaac, rabbi of Mainz.[12][13] Simon was a disciple of Gershom ben Judah,[14] who died that same year. On his father's side, Rashi has been claimed to be a 33rd-generation descendant of Johanan HaSandlar,[15] who was a fourth-generation descendant of Gamaliel, who was reputedly descended from the Davidic line.[15] In his voluminous writings, Rashi himself made no such claim at all. The main early rabbinical source about his ancestry, Responsum No. 29 by Solomon Luria, makes no such claim either.[16][17]

Legends

[edit]

His fame later made him the subject of many legends. One tradition contends that his parents were childless for many years. Rashi's father, Yitzhak, a poor winemaker, once found a precious jewel and was approached by non-Jews who wished to buy it to adorn their idol. Yitzhak agreed to travel with them to their land, but en route, he cast the gem into the sea. Afterwards he was visited by either the Voice of God or the prophet Elijah, who told him that he would be rewarded with the birth of a noble son "who would illuminate the world with his Torah knowledge."[18]

Another legend also states that Rashi's parents moved to Worms, Germany while Rashi's mother was pregnant. As she walked down one of the narrow streets in the Jewish quarter, she was imperiled by two oncoming carriages. She turned and pressed herself against a wall, which opened to receive her. This miraculous niche is still visible in the wall of the Worms Synagogue.[19]

Additional legends, particularly in Hasidic literature, postulate that Rashi's tremendous works and accomplishments were inspired by the Holy Spirit, the Shekhinah, as no mere human could produce such immense works. One text goes so far as to claim that Rashi was beyond human; the author proposes that he never died a natural death, but rather ascended to Heaven alive like the immortal prophet Elijah.[20]

Yeshiva studies

[edit]
Rashi Synagogue, Worms

According to tradition, Rashi was first brought to learn Torah by his father on Shavuot day at the age of five. His father was his main Torah teacher until his death when Rashi was still a youth. At the age of 17 he married and soon after went to learn in the yeshiva of Yaakov ben Yakar in Worms, returning to his wife three times yearly, for the Days of Awe, Passover and Shavuot. When Yaakov died in 1064, Rashi continued learning in Worms for another year in the yeshiva of his relative, Isaac ben Eliezer Halevi, who was also chief rabbi of Worms. Then he moved to Mainz, where he studied under another of his relatives, Isaac ben Judah, the rabbinic head of Mainz and one of the leading sages of the Lorraine region straddling France and Germany.

Rashi's teachers were students of Rabbeinu Gershom and Eliezer Hagadol, leading Talmudists of the previous generation. From his teachers, Rashi imbibed the oral traditions pertaining to the Talmud as they had been passed down for centuries, as well as an understanding of the Talmud's logic and forms of argument. Rashi took concise, copious notes from what he learned in yeshiva, incorporating this material in his commentaries. He was also greatly influenced by the exegetical principles of Menahem Kara.[21]

Career

[edit]

He returned to Troyes at the age of 25, after which time his mother died, and he was asked to join the Troyes Beth din (rabbinical court). He also began answering halakhic questions. Upon the death of the head of the Bet din, Zerach ben Abraham, Rashi assumed the court's leadership and answered hundreds of halakhic queries.

Exterior of Rashi's Synagogue, Worms, Germany

At some time around 1070 he founded a yeshiva, which attracted many disciples. Jewish oral tradition contends that he was a vintner.[22] There is no evidence for this, although Rashi shows an extensive knowledge of winemaking utensils and process.[23] One responsum from his school refers to a barrel of wine marked with Rashi's import seal.[24] The soil around Troyes is not suited to growing grapes, but some vineyards are known to have existed anyway, due to the great local demand for wine.[25]

Although there are many legends about his travels, Rashi likely never went farther than from the Seine to the Rhine; his furthest destinations were the yeshivas of Lorraine.

In 1096, the People's Crusade swept through the Lorraine, murdering 12 Jews and uprooting whole communities. Among those murdered in Worms were the three sons of Isaac ben Eliezer Halevi, Rashi's teacher. Rashi wrote several Selichot (penitential poems) mourning the slaughter and the destruction of the region's great yeshivot. Seven of Rashi's Selichot still exist,[26] including Adonai Elohei Hatz'vaot, which is recited on the eve of Rosh Hashanah, and Az Terem Nimtehu, which is recited on the Fast of Gedalia.

Death and burial site

[edit]

Rashi died on July 13, 1105 (Tammuz 29, 4865) at the age of 65.[27] He was buried in Troyes. The approximate location of the cemetery in which he was buried was recorded in Seder ha-Dorot, but over time the location of the cemetery was forgotten. A number of years ago, a Sorbonne professor discovered an ancient map depicting the site of the cemetery, which lay under an open square in the city of Troyes. After this discovery, French Jews erected a large monument in the center of the square—a large, black and white globe featuring the three Hebrew letters of רשי artfully arranged counterclockwise in negative space, evoking the style of Hebrew microcalligraphy. The granite base of the monument is engraved: Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki — Commentator and Guide.

In 2005, Yisroel Meir Gabbai erected an additional plaque at this site marking the square as a burial ground. The plaque reads: "The place you are standing on is the cemetery of the town of Troyes. Many Rishonim are buried here, among them Rabbi Shlomo, known as Rashi the holy, may his merit protect us".[28]

Descendants

[edit]
Main article: Rashi's daughters

Rashi had no sons. All of his three children were girls, named Yocheved, Miriam and Rachel. He invested himself in their education; his writings and the legends which surround him suggest that his daughters were well-versed in the Torah and the Talmud (at a time when women were not expected to study) and would help him when he was too weak to write. His daughters married his disciples; most present-day Ashkenazi rabbinical dynasties can trace their lineage back to his daughters Miriam or Yocheved.[29]

A late-20th century legend claims that Rashi's daughters wore tefillin. While a few women in medieval Ashkenaz did wear tefillin, there is no evidence that Rashi's daughters did.[30]

  • Rashi's oldest daughter, Yocheved, married Meir ben Samuel; their four sons were Shmuel (Rashbam; born 1080), Yitzchak (Rivam; born 1090), Jacob (Rabbeinu Tam; born 1100), and Shlomo the Grammarian, all of whom were among the most prolific Tosafists. Yocheved's daughter, Channah, is reputed to have instructed the local women to recite the blessing after candle lighting (instead of before).
  • Rashi's middle daughter, Miriam, married Judah ben Nathan, who completed the commentary on the Talmud Makkot.[31] Their daughter Alvina was a learned woman whose customs served as the basis for later halakhic decisions. Their son Yom Tov later moved to Paris and headed a yeshiva there, together with his brothers Shimshon and Eliezer.
  • Rashi's youngest daughter, Rachel, married (and divorced) Eliezer ben Shemiah. Little else is known about her.

It is reputed that the famous Polish Talmudist Moses Isserles (1530–1572) was a descendant of Rashi.[32]

Works

[edit]

Commentary on the Tanakh

[edit]
A modern translation of Rashi's commentary on the Chumash, published by Artscroll

Rashi's commentary on the Tanakh—and especially his commentary on the Chumash—is the essential companion for any study of the Bible among Orthodox Jews. Drawing on the breadth of Midrashic, Talmudic and Aggadic literature (including literature that is no longer extant), as well as his knowledge of Hebrew grammar and halakhah, Rashi clarifies the "simple" meaning of the text so that a bright child of five could understand it.[33] At the same time, his commentary forms the foundation for some of the most profound legal analysis and mystical discourses that came after it. Scholars debate why Rashi chose a particular Midrash to illustrate a point, or why he used certain words and phrases and not others. Shneur Zalman of Liadi wrote that "Rashi's commentary on Torah is the 'wine of Torah'. It opens the heart and uncovers one's essential love and fear of G-d."[34]

Scholars believe that Rashi's commentary on the Torah grew out of the lectures he gave to his students in his yeshiva, and evolved with the questions and answers they raised on it. Rashi completed this commentary only in the last years of his life. It was immediately accepted as authoritative by all Jewish communities, Ashkenazi and Sephardi alike.[dubious – discuss]

The first dated Hebrew printed book was Rashi's commentary on the Chumash, printed by Abraham ben Garton in Reggio di Calabria, Italy, 18 February 1475. (This version did not include the text of the Chumash itself.)[35]

Rashi wrote commentaries on all the books of Tanakh[36] except Chronicles I & II, and Ezra–Nehemiah.[37] His commentary to Job is incomplete, ending at 40:25.[38]

A main characteristic of Rashi's writing was his focus on grammar and syntax. His primary focus was on word choice, and "essentially [he acts] as a dictionary where he defines unusual Hebrew words." He searches for things that may not be clear to the reader and offers clarification on the inconsistency that may be present. Rashi does so by "filling in missing information that [helps] lead to a more complete understanding" of the Torah.[39] A portion of his writing is dedicated to making distinctions between the peshat, or plain and literal meaning of the text, and the aggadah or rabbinic interpretation. Rashbam, one of Rashi's grandchildren, heavily critiqued his response on his "commentary on the Torah [being] based primarily on the classic midrashim (rabbinic homilies)."[40]

Rashi himself explained his method as utilizing both peshat and derash: "I, however, am only concerned with the plain sense of Scripture (peshuto shel mikra) and with such Agadoth that explain the words of Scripture in a manner that fits in with them."[41] In one place, he quotes a midrash and then states "But this midrash cannot be reconciled with Scripture for several reasons... Therefore I say: let scripture be reconciled according to its simple meaning, clearly, and the midrash may also be expounded, as is said: 'Is not My word... like a hammer which shatters the rock?'[42] - it is divided into many fragments."[43]

Commentary on the Talmud

[edit]
An early printing of the Talmud (Ta'anit 9b); Rashi's commentary is at the bottom of the right column, continuing for a few lines into the left column. [Note: According to R' Zvi Chajes, the "Rashi" commentary on Ta'anit was not written by Rashi]

Rashi wrote the first comprehensive commentary on the Talmud, covering nearly all of the Babylonian Talmud (a total of 30 out of 39 tractates, due to his death). The commentary, drawing on his knowledge of the entire contents of the Talmud, attempts to provide a full explanation of the words and of the logical structure of each Talmudic passage. Unlike other commentators, Rashi does not paraphrase or exclude any part of the text, but elucidates phrase by phrase. Often he provides punctuation in the unpunctuated text, explaining, for example, "This is a question"; "He says this in surprise", "He repeats this in agreement", etc.

As in his commentary on the Tanakh, Rashi frequently illustrates the meaning of the text using analogies to the professions, crafts, and sports of his day. He also translates difficult Hebrew or Aramaic words into the spoken French language of his day, giving latter-day scholars a window into the vocabulary and pronunciation of Old French.

Rashi's Talmud commentary spread quickly, reaching Jews as far as Yemen by mid-12th century.[44] It has been included in every version of the Talmud since its first printing in the fifteenth century. It is always situated towards the middle of the opened book display; i.e., on the side of the page closest to the binding.

Some of the other printed commentaries which are attributed to Rashi were composed by others, primarily his students. Akiva Eger stated that the commentary on Nazir was not in fact by Rashi, while Zvi Hirsch Chajes stated that the commentary on Taanit was not by Rashi.[45] In some editions of the Talmud, the text indicates that Rashi died before completing the tractate, and that it was completed by a student. This is true of Makkot (the end of which was composed by his son-in-law, Judah ben Nathan), and of Bava Batra (finished, in a more detailed style, by his grandson the Rashbam). The commentary attributed to Rashi on Horayot was thought by some[46] to have been written by Judah ben Nathan, but evidence was uncovered indicating that the commentary on Horayot was from the school of Gershom ben Judah.[47] There is a legend that the commentary on Nedarim, which is clearly not his, was actually composed by his daughters. Another legend states that Rashi died while writing a commentary on Talmud, and that the very last word he wrote was 'tahor,' which means pure in Hebrew - indicating that his soul was pure as it left his body.

Responsa

[edit]

About 300 of Rashi's responsa and halakhic decisions are extant. Although some may find contradictory to Rashi's intended purpose for his writings, these responsa were copied, preserved, and published by his students, grandchildren, and other future scholars.[48] Siddur Rashi, compiled by an unknown student, also contains Rashi's responsa on prayer. Many other rulings and responsa are recorded in Mahzor Vitry. Other compilations include Sefer Hapardes, probably edited by Shemaiah of Troyes,[c] Rashi's student, and Sefer Haorah, prepared by Nathan Hamachiri.

Rashi's writing is placed under the category of post-Talmudic, for its explanation and elaboration on the Talmud; however, he not only wrote about the meaning of Biblical and Talmudic passages, but also on liturgical texts, syntax rules, and cases regarding new religions emerging.[49] Some say that his responsa allows people to obtain "clear pictures of his personality," and shows Rashi as a kind, gentle, humble, and liberal man.[50] They also illustrate his intelligence and common sense.

Rashi's responsa not only addressed some of the different cases and questions regarding Jewish life and law, but it shed light into the historical and social conditions which the Jews were under during the First Crusade.[50] He covered the following topics and themes in his responsa: linguistic focus on texts, law related to prayer, food, and the Sabbath, wine produced by non-Jews, oaths and excommunications, sales, partnerships, loans and interest, bails, communal affairs, and civil law. Rashi's responsa can be broken down into three genres: questions by contemporary sages and students regarding the Torah, the law, and other compilations.[48]

For example, in his writing regarding relations with the Christians, he provides a guide for how one should behave when dealing with martyrs and converts, as well as the "insults and terms of [disgrace] aimed at the Jews."[48] Stemming from the aftermath of the Crusades, Rashi wrote concerning those who were forced to convert, and the rights women had when their husbands were killed.[49]

Rashi focused the majority of his responsa, if not all, on a "meticulous analysis of the language of the text".[51]

Poetry

[edit]

Rashi wrote several selichot (penitential prayers), some of which are still recited today as part of the Jewish liturgy. These include:

Other poems are sometimes falsely attributed to Rashi. The above list is probably not exhaustive, but no evidence exists to connect Rashi to other poems.[56]

Assessment and legacy

[edit]

Rashi was one of the first authors to write in Old French (the language he spoke in everyday life,[57] which he used alongside Hebrew), as most contemporary French authors instead wrote in Latin. As a consequence, besides its religious value, his work is valued for the insight it gives into the language and culture of Northern France in the 11th century.[58] His commentaries on the Tanakh—especially his commentary on the Chumash (the "Five Books of Moses")—serves as the basis of more than 300 "supercommentaries" which analyze Rashi's choice of language and citations, penned by some of the greatest names in rabbinic literature.[59] Rashi was also the primary subject of Romanian-born American writer and political activist Elie Wiesel's 2009 biography entitled Rashi: A Portrait.

Commentary on the Tanakh

[edit]
Title page of an English translation of Rashi's Commentary on the Pentateuch.

Tens of thousands of men, women and children study "Chumash with Rashi" as they review the Torah portion to be read in synagogue on the upcoming Shabbat. According to halakha, a man may even fulfill of the requirement of Shnayim mikra ve-echad targum by reading Rashi's commentary rather than the standard Targum Onkelos.[60][61] Since its publication, Rashi's commentary on the Torah is standard in almost all Chumashim produced within the Orthodox Jewish community. Many people who study Rashi along with Tanakh use the term "Chumash with Rashi".[62]

Mordechai Leifer of Nadvorna said that anyone who learns the weekly Parsha together with the commentary by Rashi every week is guaranteed to sit in the Yeshiva (school) of Rashi in the Afterlife.[63]

Voluminous supercommentaries have been published on Rashi's Bible commentaries, including Gur Aryeh by Judah Loew (the Maharal), Sefer ha-Mizrachi by Elijah Mizrachi (the Re'em), and Yeri'ot Shlomo by Solomon Luria (the Maharshal). Menachem Mendel Schneerson, in his Rashi Sichos, often addresses several of these commentaries at once.

Rashi's influence grew the most in the 15th century; from the 17th century onwards, his commentaries were translated into many other languages. Rashi's commentary on the Pentateuch was known as the first printed Hebrew work. English translations include those of Rosenbaum and Silbermann and ArtScroll.

Commentary on the Talmud

[edit]
Raschihaus, Jewish Museum, Worms, Germany.

Rashi's commentary on the Talmud continues to be a key basis for contemporary rabbinic scholarship and interpretation. Without Rashi's commentary, the Talmud would have remained a closed book.[64]

Rashi's commentary had a profound influence on subsequent Talmud study and scholarship:

The commentaries of Rashi democratized talmudic scholarship. Prior to his work, the only way to master a tractate was to travel to a talmudic academy and study at the feet of a master. No written work could systematically convey with any degree of sustained accuracy the precise line of a talmudic argument... With the appearance of Rashi’s work, anyone, regardless of means, could by dint of talent and effort master any talmudic topic. It further expanded the range of knowledge of most scholars. Previously, one knew accurately only what one had been fortunate to study at an academy... The lifelong study of Talmud, the constant conquest of new tractates, and the unlimited personal acquisition of knowledge was in many ways the consequence of Rashi’s inimitable work of exposition.[65]

The presence of Rashi's commentary also changed the nature of subsequent Talmud commentaries:

This is not to say that Rashi’s explanations were definitive. Far from it. For some three hundred years scholars scrutinized his commentary, criticized innumerable passages, and demanded their reinterpretation. Yet, all realized that the problem that had confronted scholars for close to half a millennium—how to turn the abrupt and sometimes gnomic formulations of the Talmud into a coherent and smoothly flowing text—had been solved definitively by Rashi. The subsequent task of scholars, therefore, was to emend and add to his interpretations.[65]

In general, Rashi's commentary provides the peshat or literal meaning of the Talmud, while subsequent commentaries such as the Tosafot often go beyond the passage itself in terms of arguments, parallels, and distinctions that could be drawn out.[66] This addition to Jewish texts was seen as causing a "major cultural product"[67] which became an important part of Torah study.[67][68] In the standard printed Talmud, the Tosafot's commentaries can be found in the Talmud opposite Rashi's commentary. The Tosafot also added comments and criticism in places where Rashi had not added comments.

Rashi also exerted a decisive influence on establishing the correct text of the Talmud. Up to and including his age, texts of each Talmudic tractate were copied by hand and circulated in yeshivas. Errors often crept in: sometimes a copyist would switch words around, and other times incorporate a student's marginal notes into the main text. Because of the large number of merchant-scholars who came from throughout the Jewish world to attend the great fairs in Troyes, Rashi was able to compare different manuscripts and readings in Tosefta, Jerusalem Talmud, Midrash, Targum, and the writings of the Geonim, and determine which readings should be preferred. However, in his humility, he deferred to scholars who disagreed with him. For example, in Chulin 4a, he comments about a phrase, "We do not read this. But as for those who do, this is the explanation..."

Influence in non-Jewish circles

[edit]
The Rashi Gate in the city fortifications of Worms

Rashi's commentaries on the Bible, especially those on the Pentateuch, circulated in many different communities. In the 12th–17th centuries, Rashi's influence spread from French and German provinces to Spain and the east. He had a tremendous influence on Christian scholars. The French monk Nicholas de Lyra, who was known as the "ape of Rashi",[69] relied on Rashi's commentary when writing his Postillae Perpetuate, one of the primary sources used in Luther's translation of the Bible. He believed that Rashi's commentaries were the "official repository of Rabbinical tradition"[70] and significant to understanding the Bible. Rashi's commentaries became significant to humanists at this time who studied grammar and exegesis. Christian Hebraists studied Rashi's commentaries as important interpretations "authorized by the Synagogue".[70]

Although Rashi had an influence on communities outside of Judaism, his lack of connection to science prevented him from entering the general domain, and he remained more popular among the Jewish community.[69][70]

In his book Demystifying Islam, Muslim apologist Harris Zafar cites Rashi for the view that the Song of Songs is not an erotic poem narrated by a man about a woman, but is instead a poem narrated by God about the people of Israel, a point of importance to Muslims because of their belief, which Zafar summarizes, that the Song of Songs, at Chapter 5, Verse 16, mentions Muhammad by name, a supposition that might be problematic if the mention were in an erotic context.[71]

"Rashi script"

[edit]
Main article: Rashi script
The complete Hebrew alphabet in Rashi script [right to left].

The semi-cursive typeface in which Rashi's commentaries are printed both in the Talmud and Tanakh is often referred to as "Rashi script." Despite the name, Rashi himself did not use such a script: the typeface is based on a 15th-century Sephardic semi-cursive hand, postdating Rashi's death by several hundred years. Early Hebrew typographers such as the Soncino family and Daniel Bomberg employed in their editions of commented texts (such as the Mikraot Gedolot and the Talmud, in which Rashi's commentaries prominently figure) what would become called "Rashi script" to distinguish the rabbinic commentary from the primary text proper, for which they used a square typeface.

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Rashi

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki (c. 1040–1105), commonly known by the acronym Rashi (from Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki), was a medieval French Jewish scholar and commentator who authored foundational exegetical works on the Torah and the Babylonian Talmud. Born in Troyes, in the County of Champagne, Rashi established a renowned yeshiva there and engaged in the wine trade to support his scholarly pursuits, while his commentaries—characterized by clarity, literal interpretation (peshat), and accessibility—transformed Jewish textual study by elucidating complex rabbinic discussions for both scholars and lay readers. His works, including the standard Torah commentary that addresses linguistic, historical, and midrashic elements, and the Talmudic glosses printed in virtually every edition, remain indispensable, influencing subsequent generations of Tosafists and enduring as the primary lens through which these texts are approached in traditional Jewish education. Rashi's scholarship, produced amid the socio-economic vibrancy of Ashkenazic Jewry and the threats of the First Crusade, emphasized practical halakhic guidance over philosophical speculation, cementing his legacy as the preeminent medieval exegete whose insights continue to shape interpretive traditions.

Name and Identity

Etymology and Acronym

The designation Rashi functions as an for the Hebrew Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki (רַבִּי שְׁלֹמֹה יִצְחָקִי), representing the full name of the scholar Solomon ben Isaac (c. 1040–1105 CE). This form of abbreviation, common in to honor authors succinctly, supplanted his given name in scholarly and traditional references by the medieval period. The component Yitzchaki derives from his father's given name, Yitzchak (יִצְחָק), a patronymic convention typical in Ashkenazic Jewish naming practices, where the suffix -i denotes descent ("son of"). Yitzchak itself traces to the biblical patriarch Isaac, from the Hebrew root tzachak meaning "to laugh," as described in Genesis 21:6. Shlomo, his personal name, means "peace" in Hebrew, echoing King Solomon (שְׁלֹמֹה). While the acronym primarily encodes his identity, some Jewish interpretive traditions secondarily expand Rashi as Rabbeinu Shel Yisrael ("our rabbi, the teacher of Israel"), reflecting his pervasive influence on Torah study, though this is not its literal etymological basis.

Historical Verification

The historical existence of Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki, known as Rashi, is firmly established through the preservation of his extensive commentaries on the Torah and Babylonian Talmud, which constitute primary textual evidence of his scholarly activity in 11th-century France. These works, covering nearly the entire Talmud (30 of 39 tractates) and the Pentateuch, survive in hundreds of medieval manuscripts, with the earliest exemplars of his Torah commentary dating to the late 12th century, within decades to a century of his reported death. The consistent attribution to "Rashi" or Rabbi Shlomo of Troyes across these manuscripts, combined with their linguistic and interpretive style matching the Ashkenazic tradition of the period, supports authentic authorship rather than later fabrication. Biographical details, including his birth around 1040 in and death on July 13, 1105 (29 Tammuz 4865), originate from rabbinic traditions recorded shortly after his lifetime, such as those in the writings of his students and family members. These are corroborated by the internal chronology of his works, which reference events and scholars active during his era, and by citations in contemporaneous literature composed by his grandsons, Rashbam (Samuel ben Meir, c. 1085–1158) and Rabbenu Tam (Jacob ben Meir, c. 1100–1171), who explicitly engage with and expand upon his interpretations. No contemporary non-Jewish documents directly name him, as expected given the limited interaction between Jewish and Christian record-keeping in medieval Champagne, but the absence does not undermine the robust internal Jewish evidentiary chain. Physical remnants, such as a purported in , lack verification; the original where he was interred was demolished in the , with no surviving markers or archaeological confirmation. Claims of descent from King or miraculous events, while prominent in later , do not alter the core historical attestation provided by textual transmission, which aligns with empirical over anecdotal traditions. Scholarly consensus accepts Rashi as a verifiable figure without significant dispute, prioritizing the causal continuity of his teachings' influence on subsequent Jewish learning as indirect but compelling validation.

Historical Context

Medieval Ashkenazic Judaism

Medieval Ashkenazic Judaism encompassed the Jewish communities of the in present-day western and northern , emerging as distinct cultural and religious centers from the 9th to 11th centuries through migrations from , , and earlier settlements. These communities, termed after the biblical name for , developed unique liturgical rites, Hebrew pronunciation, and legal customs diverging from Sephardic traditions further south. By the , major settlements formed in the ShUM cities—, Worms, and —whose Hebrew initials denote their sanctity as hubs of and communal life, fostering a network that influenced broader European Jewry. Economic roles positioned as intermediaries in and finance, leveraging imperial privileges that permitted activities barred to Christians under prohibiting . In , Bishop Rüdiger Huzmann's 1084 explicitly granted Jews rights to own land, engage in without tolls, administer internal , and lend with , while affording equivalent to that in other German cities; similar protections extended in Worms and under Holy Roman Emperors like Henry IV. While moneylending was prominent due to ecclesiastical restrictions on Christian participation, Jews also pursued , , and artisanal crafts, contributing to regional amid feudal economies. Intellectual life centered on rigorous Talmudic scholarship in yeshivot of the ShUM cities, where study emphasized (dialectical analysis) and practical halakhah. Rabbi (c. 960–1040), dubbed Me'or HaGolah ("Light of the Exile"), established early Ashkenazi leadership from , authoring Talmud commentaries preserved by disciples and convening a around 1000 CE that banned —binding Ashkenazim indefinitely—and restricted forced , adapting rabbinic to Diaspora realities. This era's relative autonomy under charters enabled flourishing academies, producing paytanim (liturgical poets) and halakhic innovators, setting precedents for figures like Rashi before disruptions from the 1096 Crusades.

Impact of the First Crusade

The , launched in 1095 by , incited widespread violence against communities in northern Europe, particularly during the "" phase in spring 1096, when unstructured mobs of crusaders attacked cities such as , Worms, and —key centers of Ashkenazic scholarship where Rashi had studied decades earlier. These massacres resulted in the deaths of thousands of , including forced conversions, suicides to avoid , and destruction of synagogues and scrolls; for instance, in alone, over 1,000 perished in May 1096. Although French communities, including , escaped direct assault due to stronger royal protections under figures like I, the events reverberated across Ashkenazic Jewry, disrupting scholarly networks and prompting migrations southward. Rashi, aged 56 at the onset of the attacks, experienced profound personal grief, losing relatives and associates in the pogroms while his own community remained secure. These losses compounded the era's hardships for him, including family bereavements and regional instability, though he continued issuing halakhic responsa until his death in 1105. The devastation weakened the very yeshivot in Worms and that had shaped his education under teachers like Ya'akov ben Yakar, effectively shifting intellectual leadership toward and elevating Rashi's role amid the survivor community's reliance on preserved texts. Scholars detect subtle allusions to crusader violence and ideology in Rashi's biblical commentaries, suggesting indirect influence despite most works predating ; for example, his Genesis exegesis selects midrashim affirming Jewish indigenous rights to , countering papal rhetoric justifying conquest of the . Similarly, interpretations of Isaiah 53:9 evoke martyrdom burials akin to practices, and Leviticus 22:32 references communal self-sacrifice under duress. Such echoes, per analyses, reflect Rashi's adaptation of scriptural to address contemporary trauma without explicit mention, likely to evade Christian censorship, while fostering resilience in like the Av Harakhamim . Overall, the Crusade accelerated antisemitic precedents in , straining Jewish-Christian coexistence and underscoring Rashi's commentaries as bulwarks of interpretive continuity amid cultural peril.

Biography

Birth and Early Life

Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki, known by the acronym Rashi, was born in 1040 in Troyes, a city in the Champagne region of northern France. His father, Yitzchak, was a respected Talmudic scholar who reportedly influenced early Jewish legal decisions in the region, though records of his specific contributions are limited. Little is documented about Rashi's mother or circumstances beyond his scholarly upbringing in a modest Jewish community centered on and religious study. at the time was a hub for Ashkenazic engaged in , including wine production, which later factored into Rashi's own livelihood. Historical accounts indicate that Rashi received his foundational education in and locally under family and community tutelage, laying the groundwork for his later expertise, though no primary documents detail the precise curriculum or teachers of this period.

Yeshiva Studies

Following preliminary Torah instruction from his father, Rabbi Yitzchak, Rashi departed Troyes in his late teens or early twenties to pursue advanced studies in the prominent yeshivot of the Rhineland region in Germany, specifically in Mainz and Worms, centers of Ashkenazic scholarship known collectively as the ShUM cities. These institutions, established in the tradition of earlier luminaries like Rabbenu Gershom Meor HaGolah, emphasized intensive Talmudic analysis and legal reasoning. In Mainz, Rashi studied under Rabbi Yaakov ben Yakar, a leading talmudist whose yeshiva focused on dialectical interpretation of the Babylonian Talmud. After Rabbi Yaakov's death, he continued under other scholars in the same locale. In Worms, his primary teacher was Rabbi Isaac ben Eliezer haLevi, where he deepened his engagement with Talmudic texts and halakhic traditions. These studies, spanning approximately a decade, equipped Rashi with the rigorous analytical skills that later informed his commentaries, drawing on the precise, literal approach prevalent in German yeshivot as opposed to the more pilpul-oriented methods developing elsewhere. Rashi returned to around 1065, having absorbed the foundational texts and methodologies of Ashkenazic learning during this formative period. His education in these yeshivot not only honed his expertise in but also exposed him to the broader corpus of , including midrashim, which he would reference extensively in his later works.

Career and Teaching in Troyes

Upon completing his studies in the yeshivot of and Worms, Rashi returned to his native around 1065 and established a there circa 1070, attracting a significant number of pupils from the region and beyond. This institution served as a hub for ic and biblical study, where Rashi lectured systematically on the Babylonian tractates, prioritizing the plain meaning () over dialectical expansion to make complex texts accessible to students. His teaching integrated the Franco-German scholarly traditions he acquired abroad with local practices, fostering an environment that emphasized practical halakhic application alongside textual explication. As the elected rabbi of , Rashi headed the local bet din (rabbinical court), adjudicating disputes and issuing responsa on matters of Jewish law, though few of his written decisions survive. He balanced scholarly pursuits with communal leadership, surviving the upheavals of the in 1096 without direct persecution in Troyes, unlike contemporaneous communities. Economically independent, Rashi sustained his household and academy through , cultivating vineyards and producing wine in the fertile Champagne area, a trade common among medieval Ashkenazic Jews. Rashi's pedagogical commentaries, composed concurrently with his lectures, were tailored for novice learners, quoting midrashic interpretations selectively while resolving textual cruxes with linguistic and logical precision derived from his mentors. His yeshiva laid foundational influence for the Tosafist movement, as his grandsons—Rabbi Jacob Tam and Rabbi Samuel ben Meir—extended his analytical approach into glosses (tosafot) on the Talmud, expanding the scope of dialectical study among subsequent scholars. The academy's emphasis on vernacular French elements in exegesis reflected Rashi's adaptation to local linguistic realities, enhancing comprehension for non-elite students.

Family and Descendants

Rashi married Rivka (also known as Rebecca), with whom he had no sons but two or three daughters, according to varying traditions; contemporary scholarship favors two primary daughters, Yocheved and , while a third, , appears primarily in later legends and is often discounted by historians. The absence of sons meant Rashi's scholarship and influence passed through his daughters' marriages to distinguished students and scholars, establishing a prominent rabbinic dynasty that produced key figures in medieval Jewish learning, particularly among the Tosafists. Yocheved, the eldest daughter, married Meir ben Samuel, a close student of Rashi; their sons included Samuel ben Meir (known as Rashbam, c. 1085–c. 1174), a leading biblical exegete who extended Rashi's literal interpretation methods, and Jacob ben Meir (Rabbenu Tam, c. 1100–1171), a foundational Tosafist renowned for reconciling ic contradictions and authoring seminal halakhic works. Miriam wed Judah ben Nathan, who compiled a commentary on the and further disseminated Rashi's teachings. If Rachel existed historically rather than as a haggadic addition, she married Eliezer ben Samuel haLevi, though evidence for her remains sparse and unverified in primary medieval sources. Rashi's descendants formed the core of the "House of Rashi," a scholarly network centered in northern and Champagne that shaped Tosafist dialectics and influenced Ashkenazic for centuries; grandsons like Rashbam and Rabbenu Tam not only commented on their grandfather's works but also critiqued and expanded them, fostering innovations in (analytical reasoning). This lineage persisted despite persecutions, with later descendants including figures like Ri haZaken (Isaac of Dampierre), though claims of direct descent among modern Ashkenazim rely on genealogical traditions rather than unbroken documentary chains.

Death and Burial

Rashi died in , , on July 13, 1105 (29 Tammuz 4865), at the age of 65. He had returned to his hometown after studies in the and established a there, continuing his scholarly and communal leadership until his death. He was buried in the of , known historically as the "Jews' Field." The cemetery's approximate location was identified in archaeological efforts during the , though no specific marker for Rashi's tomb survives. In the , the site was demolished to accommodate urban expansion, resulting in the loss of many graves, including Rashi's, with no verified remnants or inscriptions confirming the exact spot. Modern memorials in , such as the Rashi Sphere sculpture, commemorate his legacy but do not mark the burial site itself.

Legends and Hagiography

Key Legends

One prominent legend recounts the circumstances of Rashi's conception and birth, portraying his parents as long childless until his father demonstrated exceptional piety. Tradition holds that Rashi's father possessed a valuable gem sought by for idolatrous purposes; refusing to sell it, he cast it into the River, after which a heavenly voice or the prophet promised him a son who would "illuminate the eyes of ." This narrative underscores themes of divine reward for religious zeal, with Elijah's intervention linking Rashi's future scholarship to miraculous origins. Another key legend involves Rashi's encounter with , leader of the , depicting the scholar as a prophetic figure amid rising threats to communities. In this account, Godfrey sought Rashi's counsel on his campaign to conquer from Muslim control; Rashi reportedly foretold that Godfrey would succeed but rule for only three days before returning with three horses and three riders, two of whom would be dead, symbolizing ultimate failure. Variations describe them as friends, with Rashi's prediction averting immediate harm to by deterring Godfrey's threats, though the duke departed vowing retribution if the prophecy proved false—events that unfolded as stated during the 1099 . A further posits Rashi had a third daughter named , in addition to the historically attested Yocheved, , and possibly another, attributing to her unusual or . However, this figure appears primarily in later and novels rather than contemporary records, with modern largely rejecting her existence based on genealogical evidence from Rashi's documented . These tales, while enhancing Rashi's saintly aura, reflect post-medieval hagiographic embellishments rather than verifiable events.

Critical Assessment of Legends

The legends attributed to Rashi, including miraculous circumstances surrounding his conception and birth—such as his mother's narrow escape from drowning after divine intervention—and purported encounters with prophetic figures like , first appear in sources composed well after his death, such as the 13th-century Sefer Zekhirah by Rabbi Eleazar ben Asher Hatevi. These accounts lack corroboration from Rashi's own writings or contemporary documents, which provide only sparse details like his studies in and Worms and his role as head of a in . Modern historians view them as hagiographic constructs typical of medieval Jewish piety, designed to exalt Rashi's sanctity amid communal reverence rather than preserve verifiable history. Scholarly biographies, including Avraham Grossman's Rashi (2012), reconstruct his life from internal evidence in his commentaries and Talmudic glosses by students like Rashbam, emphasizing empirical traces such as his viniculture references and family responsa over supernatural tales. Grossman and others dismiss elements like Rashi's alleged painless delivery of grandchildren or debates with crusaders as later folkloric accretions, noting their absence in 11th-12th century records and inconsistency with the socio-economic stability of during his tenure. These stories, while illustrating Ashkenazic ideals of humility and divine favor, reflect post-Crusade anxieties and the tendency to mythologize scholars whose intellectual output—over 500 folios of commentary—already evidenced extraordinary acumen without invoking miracles. Critically, the legends' proliferation correlates with Rashi's status by the 13th century, when his works became standard in yeshivot, prompting embellishments to underscore moral lessons like amid . However, causal analysis of his achievements points to prosaic factors: rigorous Tosafist training, communal in a vibrant Champagne fair economy, and methodical grounded in midrashic tradition, not otherworldly aid. Absent archaeological or archival support for the extraordinary claims, they function as inspirational archetypes rather than biographical facts, a pattern observed in hagiographies of figures like . This distinction preserves Rashi's historical legacy as a pivotal exegete while recognizing legends' role in over literal truth.

Works

Commentary on the Tanakh

Rashi composed comprehensive verse-by-verse commentaries on the (Pentateuch), which form the core of his contributions to Tanakh , alongside selective commentaries on most books of the Prophets and portions of the Writings such as Job, Proverbs, and . These works, drafted primarily during his tenure in between approximately 1070 and 1105, prioritize the plain meaning () of the biblical text to aid comprehension for students and scholars, while integrating midrashic traditions to resolve grammatical, logical, or contextual issues. The structure adheres closely to the biblical verses, offering concise explanations that clarify syntax, vocabulary, and narrative flow, often beginning with the most straightforward interpretation before addressing interpretive challenges. Rashi draws extensively from prior sources including the for translation insights, Talmudic discussions for legal derivations, and midrashic collections like Midrash Rabbah for aggadic expansions, but subordinates them to maintain textual fidelity rather than unchecked homiletics. For instance, in Genesis 1:1, he affirms the plain sense of creation ex nihilo while citing midrashim only to counter philosophical objections, emphasizing empirical alignment with the verse's wording over speculative derivations. This approach distinguishes Rashi's commentary by balancing accessibility with depth, rendering complex Hebrew accessible through everyday language and , which contributed to its rapid dissemination and inclusion in nearly every subsequent printed edition of the from 1475 onward. Unlike purely derash-focused predecessors, Rashi's method reflects a causal realism in interpretation, grounding explanations in the text's apparent intent and observable linguistic patterns, though he occasionally yields to traditional rabbinic views when alone yields ambiguity. Scholarly analyses note that while not exhaustively grammatical, the commentary innovates by synthesizing Franco-German exegetical precision with Babylonian rabbinic lore, fostering a hybrid that prioritizes coherent narrative over esoteric .

Commentary on the Talmud

Rashi composed commentaries on the , encompassing at least 29 of its 37 tractates in full or substantial portions, primarily during his teaching career in from around 1070 to 1105. These works originated as oral explanations for students, later transcribed and disseminated, focusing on elucidating the text's linguistic, logical, and dialectical elements to render the accessible amid its concise and argumentative style. His interpretive method prioritized explanatory clarity over expansive innovation, often beginning with the straightforward resolution of textual cruxes, such as apparent contradictions between the and or ambiguities in rabbinic disputes. Rashi frequently cited earlier authorities like the to support his readings, while outlining the sugya's (Talmudic discussion unit) progression and supplying French glosses for vernacular terms, thereby bridging obscurities with contemporary understanding. This approach contrasted with his Torah commentaries' stricter adherence to (contextual plain sense), as Talmudic analysis inherently demanded fidelity to the rabbis' own derash (interpretive derivations) while demystifying their reasoning. The commentaries' scope included core tractates across orders like (e.g., , Pesachim), (e.g., Yevamot, ), and Nezikin (e.g., , ), with lesser coverage of , , and Tohorot due to their rarer study in . Attributions vary, as some sections may incorporate pupil emendations, reflecting collaborative refinement post-Rashi's death in 1105. Their enduring utility stemmed from pragmatic , averting the Talmud's potential obsolescence akin to the less-commented . First printed alongside select tractates in 1483 (Berakhot at Soncino) and integrated into full editions by the 16th century (e.g., 1520–1523), Rashi's glosses became indispensable, appearing in virtually every subsequent printing and serving as the foundational layer for Tosafist supercommentaries. This standardization facilitated widespread study, though later scholars like Rashbam critiqued isolated deviations from strict logic in favor of received traditions.

Responsa

Rashi issued responsa addressing halakhic queries posed by students, colleagues, and communal leaders, reflecting his role as a practical decisor of Jewish law in medieval . Approximately 300 such responsa and decisions survive, scattered across medieval manuscripts and later compilations rather than in a unified collection from his lifetime. These were transcribed and disseminated by his disciples, grandchildren, and subsequent scholars, appearing in works such as , Mahzor Vitry, Sefer HaPardes, and Sefer HaOrah. The responsa encompass diverse topics in civil and ritual law, including prayer customs, dietary restrictions, Sabbath observance, the permissibility of wine produced by non-Jews, oaths and vows, excommunications, commercial transactions like sales and partnerships, loans and interest prohibitions, bailments, and communal governance. They often feature Rashi's characteristic linguistic precision, distinguishing literal (peshat) interpretations from homiletic (derash) expansions, and apply Talmudic principles to real-world scenarios amid the socio-economic strains of 11th-century Ashkenaz, particularly during the First Crusade (1096). A modern edition, Teshuvot Rashi, compiles these texts, facilitating scholarly access and confirming their attribution through textual analysis and historical transmission. While secondary to his scriptural commentaries in volume and fame, the responsa illuminate Rashi's adaptive , influencing later Ashkenazi poskim by prioritizing textual fidelity over speculative elaboration in legal adjudication.

Poetry and Liturgical Works

Rashi authored a number of piyyutim (liturgical poems), primarily in the genre of selichot (penitential prayers), which were incorporated into Ashkenazi synagogue liturgy during fast days and times of communal distress. At least ten such poems are attributed to him, reflecting the poetic traditions of northern French Jewry amid medieval persecutions. These works often employ acrostics spelling out his name (Shlomo bar Yitzchak) and draw on biblical imagery to evoke pleas for divine mercy, as seen in his selichot composed in response to the violence of the First Crusade in 1096, which included subtle references to Christian aggressors through selections from Isaiah. Specific examples include the selicha " Elokei Tzva'os," recited in some Ashkenazi rites, which laments communal suffering and seeks through structured and to prophetic texts. Another attributed appears in the eve of , showcasing literary artistry in paralleling Tosafist compositions with rhythmic pleas tied to themes of judgment and repentance. While attributions to Rashi are traditional and preserved in medieval mahzorim (festival prayer books), scholarly assessments note that some may reflect collective authorship within his school, given the fluid oral transmission of before standardization. His poetic output, though secondary to his commentaries, demonstrates proficiency in Hebrew versification and integration of midrashic elements, influencing subsequent Ashkenazi liturgical customs.

Methodological Approach

Sources and Interpretive Methods

Rashi's commentaries on the Tanakh and Talmud relied heavily on pre-existing rabbinic literature as primary sources. For his Torah commentary, he drew extensively from midrashic compilations such as Genesis Rabbah, Exodus Rabbah, Tanchuma, and Pesikta de-Rav Kahana, alongside the Babylonian Talmud, integrating aggadic explanations to elucidate textual difficulties. His Talmudic commentary similarly referenced Talmudic sugyot, earlier geonic responsa, and French tosafist traditions emerging in his era, though he prioritized resolving logical inconsistencies and linguistic ambiguities over novel derivations. In terms of interpretive methods, Rashi articulated a preference for , the contextual plain sense of the text, famously stating in his commentary on Genesis 3:8 that he composed his work "only to set forth the plain meaning of the text" and eschew extraneous homiletics. Yet scholarly analysis reveals a hybrid approach: approximately 25% of his commentary aligns strictly with peshat through philological attention to grammar, syntax, and narrative coherence, while the remaining 75% incorporates derash—midrashic derivations—for moral, theological, or anti-Christian polemical purposes. This blend, per Avraham Grossman, reflects Rashi's adaptation of emerging peshat techniques from Andalusian scholars like ben Saruq, tempered by Ashkenazic fidelity to rabbinic tradition, rather than a rigid literalism critiqued by later pashtanim such as . For , his method emphasized terse, practical elucidation of legal dialectics, often anticipating by reconciling apparent contradictions without expansive .

Peshat and Derash Integration

Rashi articulated his exegetical intent in the introduction to his Torah commentary, stating that he sought primarily to elucidate peshuto shel mikra (the plain meaning of Scripture) rather than expansive aggadah (homiletical interpretation). He qualified this by incorporating aggadic elements only insofar as they resolved textual inconsistencies or clarified the literal sense, such as apparent superfluities or contradictions between verses. This approach marked a departure from earlier rabbinic traditions dominated by derash (interpretive expansion), prioritizing grammatical and contextual analysis while subordinating midrashic traditions to support the peshat. In practice, Rashi invoked derash selectively, often when peshat alone failed to account for linguistic anomalies or halakhic implications embedded in the . For instance, he drew on midrashim to explain verses where the plain reading posed logical difficulties, integrating them as explanatory supplements rather than standalone homilies. Scholarly analyses confirm that approximately one-third of his interpretations incorporate midrashic material, but only those aligning with exegetical purpose, reflecting his Talmudic training's emphasis on reconciling disparate sources. His grandson Rashbam later critiqued this as occasional overreliance on derash, advocating stricter , yet acknowledged Rashi's foundational role in elevating literal interpretation within Ashkenazi scholarship. This synthesis influenced subsequent commentators, who viewed Rashi's method as a balanced framework: as the baseline for accessibility, augmented by derash to preserve traditional insights without supplanting the text's straightforward intent. Critics, including some Sephardic scholars like Nahmanides, occasionally rejected Rashi's midrashic inclusions as deviations from pure , favoring independent grammatical scrutiny. Nonetheless, Rashi's integration ensured his commentary served both scholarly precision and communal edification, embedding causal explanations for textual features within a predominantly literal .

Innovations and Limitations

Rashi's primary innovation in biblical was his explicit commitment to peshuto shel miqra, the plain sense of the scriptural text, marking a departure from the midrashic traditions dominant in Ashkenazic scholarship, which often prioritized homiletical derivations over literal interpretation. He articulated this goal in introductory remarks, such as on Genesis 3:8, drawing on principles like "a biblical verse does not leave the realm of its peshat" to justify selecting midrashim that align with the verse's language, sequence, and context rather than freely aggregating them. This methodological shift, influenced by philological tools from Talmud study and exposure to literal-historical Christian amid 11th-century missionizing pressures, enabled Rashi to "settle" the text (yishuv ha-miqra) by integrating compatible midrashic elements as enhancements to the plain meaning, as seen in his reworking of interpretations for coherence in books like Exodus and . In his commentary, Rashi innovated by producing a comprehensive, line-by-line elucidation that clarified obscure terms, resolved apparent contradictions through logical reconciliation, and provided pedagogical structure for dialectical study, transforming the Babylonian into an accessible curriculum for students across . This approach, more original and systematic than prior glosses, emphasized brevity and precision, often anticipating student questions and streamlining complex su gyot (discussions) without exhaustive elaboration, which facilitated widespread adoption in medieval Jewish academies. Despite these advances, Rashi's method exhibited limitations, particularly in its inconsistent application of , where religious and ideological imperatives—such as bolstering Jewish interpretations against Christian allegories—sometimes superseded exegetical rigor, leading to midrashic insertions that diverged from strict literalism. For instance, in prophetic texts like , he anchored allegorical readings of divine-human love in foundations but prioritized them to reflect contemporary Jewish , blurring the peshat-derash boundary and occasionally overriding textual sequence. Critics note that Rashi rarely unpacked the full implications of adduced midrashim, assuming readers' familiarity and leaving interpretive gaps, while his brevity, though pedagogically efficient, could obscure nuances or fail to address alternative philological possibilities, as later scholars like Rashbam highlighted in advancing purer methods. Additionally, his selective midrashic integrations sometimes preserved anthropomorphic depictions of from rabbinic sources without qualification, constraining rationalist reevaluations in favor of traditional fidelity.

Reception and Criticisms

Initial Reception

Rashi's commentaries on the Torah and Talmud garnered swift acceptance among Ashkenazic scholars in northern France and the Rhineland shortly after his death on July 13, 1105. His Talmud commentary rapidly became the primary instructional tool in yeshivas, serving as the basis for the Tosafot glosses developed by his students and descendants, including grandsons Jacob ben Meir (Rashbam) and Samuel ben Meir. This integration reflected its perceived clarity in elucidating the text's plain meaning (peshat) alongside dialectical analysis, facilitating broader access to Talmudic study amid the era's oral traditions. The Torah commentary similarly disseminated through manuscript copies, extending influence beyond France to Provence, Spain, and eastern Jewish centers by the early 12th century. Scholars such as Avraham ibn Ezra (d. 1167) and Moses ben Nahmanides (Nachmanides, d. 1270) engaged with it extensively, with Nachmanides citing Rashi in approximately 40% of his own comments and dubbing him the "father of all commentators" for its foundational role in biblical exegesis. Despite this, isolated early critiques surfaced within his family; Rashbam, prioritizing stricter peshat, faulted Rashi's inclusion of midrashic interpretations as occasionally deviating from literal sense, though such reservations did not impede veneration or pedagogical adoption. By the mid-12th century, both works were embedded in Jewish educational curricula, with Rashi's approach—concise, student-oriented, and synthesizing rabbinic sources—credited for democratizing and study across varying proficiency levels. This early entrenchment in Ashkenazic practice foreshadowed their canonical status, evidenced by the production of supercommentaries and their inseparability from the primary texts in subsequent generations.

Criticisms from Descendants and Contemporaries

Rashi's grandson Rabbi Samuel ben Meir (Rashbam, c. 1085–c. 1158) critiqued his approach to , particularly the integration of midrashic elements into what purported to be (plain meaning) commentary. Rashbam advocated a stricter adherence to the literal sense of the text, arguing that midrashim should be reserved for separate derash (homiletical) analysis rather than blended into the primary interpretation, as he believed Rashi's method obscured the 's intended grammatical and contextual meaning. This methodological divergence is evident in Rashbam's own commentary, where he explicitly revises or rejects Rashi's readings, such as in Genesis, to prioritize linguistic precision over aggadic expansions. Another grandson, Rabbi Jacob ben Meir (Rabbenu Tam, c. 1100–1171), extended these critiques into halachic realms, notably disputing Rashi's ordering of the four biblical passages in . Rabbenu Tam contended that the sequence should follow the order of appearance in the (Exodus sections before Deuteronomy), reversing Rashi's Deuteronomy-first arrangement, a disagreement that persists in the custom of some observant Jews donning two pairs of to accommodate both views. Despite such oppositions, Rabbenu Tam defended Rashi against broader detractors, reflecting a familial tension between reverence and scholarly independence within the Tosafist movement, which systematically emended Rashi's Talmudic glosses to reconcile apparent contradictions with other rabbinic sources. Contemporary critiques during Rashi's lifetime (1040–1105) appear sparse in preserved records, likely due to his stature as a teacher whose academies in and Worms disseminated authoritative interpretations. However, early Tosafist precursors and students occasionally diverged on Talmudic dialectics, foreshadowing later familial disputes; for instance, Rashbam, who studied under Rashi before his death, began refining these views in real-time halachic debates. Posthumously overlapping figures like (1089–1167) mounted sharper exegetical challenges, decrying Rashi's reliance on as insufficiently rational or grammatical, though Ibn Ezra tempered direct attacks amid Rashi's Ashkenazic dominance. These familial and proximate disagreements underscore Rashi's innovative but non-unanimous peshat-derash synthesis, which descendants refined toward greater analytic rigor without rejecting its foundational role.

Later Scholarly Debates

In the centuries following Rashi's death, scholars debated the precise nature of his Torah commentary, particularly whether it prioritized peshat (the plain, contextual meaning of the text) or incorporated derash (midrashic, interpretive expansions). Rashi explicitly stated his intent to explain according to peshuto shel mikra (the plain sense of Scripture), departing from earlier midrashic traditions that often favored allegorical or homiletical readings, yet analyses of his glosses reveal selective integration of midrashim only when they aligned with the literal sense, prompting questions about the consistency of this method. Modern textual scholars, examining over 250 surviving manuscripts, argue that reconstructing Rashi's original intent requires distinguishing his core contributions from later interpolations by pupils or editors, as variations across codices indicate post-authorial revisions influenced regional traditions. Regarding the Talmud commentary, debates center on its authenticity and completeness, with evidence suggesting Rashi revised some tractates himself while others were finalized or expanded by students, leading to inconsistencies in style and depth across the 35 tractates he covered. Fifteenth- and sixteenth-century critics, such as , launched a "" against Rashi's perceived overreliance on midrashic elements, favoring rationalist approaches like those of and viewing Rashi's work as insufficiently philosophical, though this movement ultimately failed to displace his dominance in Ashkenazi scholarship. (Ramban, d. 1270), while generally approving Rashi's framework, critiqued specific instances where Rashi diverged from tradition without sufficient justification, emphasizing the authority of received mesorah () over isolated literalism. Some academics have speculated on external influences, proposing that Rashi's emphasis on peshat served as a subtle counter to contemporary Christian exegesis, which often imposed typological readings on the Hebrew Bible; however, his commentaries contain no explicit refutations of such interpretations, suggesting any response was implicit through fidelity to Jewish contextual meaning rather than direct polemic. In modern scholarship, critiques highlight Rashi's occasional irrationalism or dependence on aggadic sources without critical scrutiny, contrasting with rationalist methodologies, though defenders note his clarity and pedagogical focus made complex texts accessible without compromising core halakhic fidelity. These debates persist, informing contemporary editions that append supercommentaries to clarify ambiguities, yet Rashi's commentaries remain foundational, with no consensus supplanting his interpretive paradigm.

Legacy

Influence on Jewish Scholarship

Rashi's commentaries on the and established a foundational framework for Jewish textual study, becoming the primary interpretive lens in medieval and subsequent rabbinic scholarship. His commentary, completed around 1100 CE, clarified complex dialectical arguments, making the Babylonian Talmud accessible to a broader audience of scholars and students in northern and beyond. This work influenced the development of the , glosses compiled by Rashi's descendants and students, such as his sons-in-law Meir ben Samuel and Judah ben Nathan, who expanded upon his interpretations while engaging in , or analytical refinement, to reconcile apparent contradictions in Talmudic texts. By prioritizing , the plain meaning, alongside derash, homiletical insights, Rashi's method shaped the exegetical standards for later authorities like (Nachmanides) and Rashbam, his grandson, fostering a tradition of layered biblical analysis. The proliferation of supercommentaries on Rashi's commentary underscores his enduring authority, with over 300 such works composed by prominent rabbis from the onward, including ben Manoah's Yashan and Baal HaTurim's mystical expansions. These supercommentaries treated Rashi's text as canonical, often defending or elaborating his choices to exclude certain midrashim in favor of contextual clarity, thereby reinforcing his selective integration of rabbinic sources as a model for interpretive restraint. In curricula, Rashi's commentary remains the default starting point for tractate study, printed alongside the text in all standard editions since the 15th-century incunabula, enabling independent analysis and reducing reliance on oral transmission from master teachers. This democratization of scholarship extended to Ashkenazi communities across , where Rashi's works informed halakhic decision-making and liturgical practices, as evidenced by their citation in responsa literature from the 12th to 18th centuries. Rashi's influence persisted into modern Jewish education, where his commentaries serve as the baseline for advanced Torah study in institutions like Yeshiva University and Lithuanian-style yeshivot, often prompting debates on the balance between literal and aggadic readings. Scholars note that while Rashi's accessibility invited critique—such as from Provençal exegetes favoring Greco-Arabic rationalism—his synthesis of French vernacular insights with Talmudic precision elevated Ashkenazi scholarship, distinguishing it from Sephardic philosophical traditions. This legacy is quantified in the vast secondary literature debating his omissions, with analyses confirming his role in canonizing midrashim previously marginal, thus embedding them in core Jewish pedagogy.

Impact Beyond Judaism

Rashi's biblical commentaries exerted influence on Christian scholarship, particularly through the 14th-century Franciscan exegete , who mastered Hebrew and drew extensively from Rashi's emphasis on the literal sense () of Scripture. , whose Postilla litteralis super totam Bibliam became a standard medieval Christian reference, frequently cited "Rabbi " (Rashi) by name, adapting his interpretations to align with Christian doctrine while prioritizing grammatical-historical analysis over allegorical excess. This reliance is evident in Lyra's treatments of books like Ruth, Lamentations, and , where Rashi's exegetical framework shaped his literal expositions and visual aids, such as diagrams of the Temple. Lyra's incorporation of Rashi's methods contributed to a broader shift in Christian biblical interpretation toward literalism, influencing figures like , whose 16th-century German Bible translation reflected indirect debts to Rashi via Lyra's dissemination of Jewish exegetical tools. Latin translations of Rashi's commentary, such as the 1710–1714 edition by Heinrich Breithaupt, further enabled non-Jewish access, extending his impact into Protestant textual studies and early modern . Beyond , Rashi's integration of vernacular glosses into his Hebrew commentaries provided linguists with valuable attestations of 11th-century Northern French dialect, aiding reconstructions of medieval Romance despite his primary focus on biblical elucidation. His methodological innovations in parsing narrative structure and literary devices paralleled contemporaneous advances in Latin rhetorical , fostering cross-cultural dialogues in scriptural without direct borrowing.

Role in Modern Jewish Practice and Education

Rashi's commentary on the remains integral to modern in Orthodox yeshivas and day schools, where it is printed alongside the text in standard editions such as the Vilna , first published between 1880 and 1886 and still widely used today. Students routinely begin Talmudic study by analyzing Rashi's elucidations, which provide clear, literal interpretations essential for grasping the core discussions before advancing to supplementary works like . This pedagogical method, unchanged since the commentary's medieval dissemination, emphasizes Rashi's role in making complex rabbinic debates accessible to learners at all levels. In , Rashi's Pentateuch commentary functions as the primary interpretive layer in contemporary Chumashim, facilitating weekly parsha readings in synagogues, homes, and educational programs across Orthodox communities. These sessions, observed globally each , draw on Rashi's blend of (plain meaning) and derash (homiletical insights) to inform ethical, legal, and narrative understandings of the biblical text. Beyond formal education, Rashi's works influence modern Jewish practice through their incorporation into rabbinic sermons, halakhic guidance, and daily personal study, sustaining their canonical status amid diverse interpretive traditions. His commentaries' enduring primacy reflects their design for broad accessibility, bridging ancient sources with ongoing Jewish intellectual life.

Rashi Script

Origins and Development

Rashi script, a semi-cursive Hebrew , originated in the as an adaptation of Sephardic handwriting, known historically as mashekit or influenced by scripts, for use in early Hebrew . It was developed to visually distinguish rabbinic commentaries from the primary biblical or Talmudic texts, which were printed in the square script reserved for sacred writings. This distinction reflected traditional Jewish scribal practices that assigned different scripts based on the perceived holiness of the content, with cursive forms deemed appropriate for secondary, interpretive material. The script's first documented appearance in print occurred on February 5, 1475, in the edition of Rashi's commentary on the Pentateuch, published in Reggio di , , by the Sephardic printer Abraham Garton. This marked the earliest dated Hebrew book, predating broader adoption in works like the 1483 Soncino press editions, where it similarly set commentaries apart from the main text. The choice of this compact also addressed practical constraints of 15th-century , such as the expense of paper, by allowing more text per page without sacrificing legibility. Although named for Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki (Rashi, 1040–1105), who composed his commentaries in a different Ashkenazic cursive known as zarphatic script, the typeface postdated him by centuries and was not used in his manuscripts. Its association with Rashi arose from printers' standardization for his prolific works, which dominated early Hebrew imprints, including standalone editions and later compilations like Mikraot Gedolot. Over subsequent centuries, the script underwent typographic refinements; for instance, 20th-century designers like Eliyahu Koren introduced variations in letter forms—such as contextual adjustments for letters like tav and hey—to enhance readability while emulating medieval handwriting nuances. This evolution solidified its role in Jewish printed literature for commentaries, persisting in modern editions despite digital adaptations.

Usage and Significance

The Rashi script is employed predominantly in printed editions of to visually distinguish commentaries from the primary biblical or talmudic text, which is rendered in the standard square Hebrew script known as . This practice began with early Hebrew printing presses in the late , with the first documented use occurring in 1475 by Abraham Garton for an edition of Rashi's commentary on the Pentateuch in , . Subsequent applications included the 1483 Soncino Press edition of the , where Rashi's commentary and other marginal notes were set in this semi-cursive surrounding the central block-lettered text. Today, it remains standard in works like the Babylonian , (a compilation of the with commentaries), and various portions, facilitating layered reading by separating explanatory content from the authoritative core. Its significance lies in enabling efficient, hierarchical text presentation in scholarly study, where distinguishing sacred primary sources from interpretive rabbinic material aligns with traditional Jewish views on textual sanctity; the square script is reserved for Torah scrolls and core texts deemed holier, while the —derived from Sephardic semi-cursive styles influenced by regional handwriting variations—serves for "mundane" annotations without implying inferiority in content. Printers favored it for its compactness, allowing more content per page and lowering production costs, as well as its readability in distinguishing layers without requiring additional spacing or colors. Despite the —Rashi himself wrote in a different Zarphatic script, and the typeface postdates him by centuries—its association with his ubiquitous commentaries elevated it to a conventional marker of rabbinic discourse, persisting in modern and printing to support daily and yeshiva analysis. This enduring role underscores its practical contribution to preserving interpretive traditions amid the proliferation of printed texts since the incunabula period.

References

  1. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/rabbi-shlomo-yitzchaki-rashi
  2. https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13862-solomon-b-isaac-rashi
  3. https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/111831/jewish/Who-Was-Rashi.htm
  4. https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/who-was-rashi/
  5. https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12585-rashi-solomon-bar-isaac
  6. https://bje.org.au/knowledge-centre/jewish-people/famous/rashi/
  7. https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/3715921/jewish/What-Is-Rashi-Script-and-Where-Did-It-Come-From.htm
  8. https://jewishaction.com/jewish-living/whats-truth-aboutrashis-father/
  9. https://www.jewishhistory.org/rashi-as-teacher/
  10. https://www.kotzkblog.com/2019/02/213-and-what-does-rashi-say.html
  11. https://www.christies.com/en/lot/lot-2092975
  12. https://yu.edu/revel/2015/12/14/review-of-dr-lisa-fredmans-lecture-rashis-biblical-commentaries-can-we-know-what-rashi-actually-wrote
  13. https://jewisheritage.org/medieval-route-of-rashi-in-champagne
  14. https://booksnthoughts.com/the-truth-about-rashi-by-a-scholar/
  15. https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1636/
  16. https://schumstaedte.de/en/
  17. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/bishop-of-speyer-on-the-grant-of-lands-and-privileges-to-the-jews-1084
  18. https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13951-speyer
  19. https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/6518326/jewish/12-Facts-You-Should-Know-About-Rabbeinu-Gershom-Meor-Hagolah.htm
  20. https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/gershom-ben-judah-meor-ha-golah
  21. https://www.jewishhistory.org/the-crusades/
  22. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/rashi
  23. https://jewishreviewofbooks.com/articles/208/rashi-and-the-crusader-a-legend/
  24. http://www.gevaryahu.com/Rashi%20and%20the%20First%20CrusadeWP.pdf
  25. https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/5628071/jewish/14-Rashi-Facts-You-Should-Know.htm
  26. https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2617025/jewish/Major-Ashkenazi-Rishonim.htm
  27. https://etzion.org.il/en/tanakh/studies-tanakh/biblical-commentaries/rashi1-centrality-and-overall-approach
  28. https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/290417
  29. https://www.worms-erleben.de/experience/entdecken-und-staunen/kulturprofile/judentum/Raschi.php
  30. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/troyes
  31. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/rashi-biblical-interpretation-and-latin-learning-in-medieval-europe/introduction/8204C89D0B2A837B15166CD1489AF4CF
  32. https://seforimblog.com/2007/08/mayer-i-gruber-how-did-rashi-make/
  33. https://trmarvin.substack.com/p/stories-from-jewish-history-coffee-with-rashi-1445684
  34. https://www.jewishhistory.org/the-house-of-rashi/
  35. https://www.thetorah.com/article/rashbam-a-short-bio
  36. https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/6943976/jewish/Rabbeinu-Tam-One-of-Judaisms-Most-Extraordinary-Figures.htm
  37. https://www.nli.org.il/en/discover/judaism/figures/rashi
  38. https://jguideeurope.org/en/region/france/champagne-ardenne/troyes/
  39. https://en.troyeslachampagne.com/cultural-heritage/le-memorial-rachi/
  40. https://www.hidabroot.com/10-facts-about-rabbi-shlomo-yitzchaki-rashi-on-the-anniversary-of-his-passing/
  41. https://www.bible-researcher.com/rashi.html
  42. https://sacred-texts.com/jud/jftl/jftl20.htm
  43. https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/who-was-rashi/
  44. https://www.liverpooluniversitypress.co.uk/doi/book/10.3828/9781904113898
  45. https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=37358
  46. https://www.heritage-history.com/index.php?c=read&author=harris&book=mediaeval&story=rashi
  47. https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/abstract/document/obo-9780199840731/obo-9780199840731-0128.xml
  48. https://www.thetorah.com/article/rashi-on-the-torah-what-kind-of-commentary-is-it
  49. https://academic.oup.com/book/36506/chapter/321226465
  50. https://traditiononline.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Rashis-Commentary-On.pdf
  51. https://www.encyclopedia.com/people/philosophy-and-religion/judaism-biographies/rashi
  52. https://repository.yu.edu/items/7427610c-e2c2-4dcb-aa07-a66afad9c6c5
  53. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/rashi/commentary-on-the-talmud/04AD1BBC1C891FA20FF8FA71EF7DB5DB
  54. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23255602
  55. https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/rashis-commentaries-on-the-talmud/
  56. https://www.sefaria.org/Teshuvot_Rashi
  57. https://referenceworks.brill.com/display/entries/EJO/COM-0157.xml?language=en
  58. https://www.nli.org.il/en/articles/RAMBI990002391430705171/NLI
  59. https://www.rabbiwein.com/blog/post-2023
  60. https://www.chabad.org/multimedia/video_cdo/aid/6091560/jewish/The-Literary-Artistry-of-Rashi-and-the-Tosafists-in-Their-Piyyutim-for-the-Eve-of-Rosh-HaShanah.htm
  61. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/rashi-biblical-interpretation-and-latin-learning-in-medieval-europe/6EEFA130B07BE43DECA2C773B65127F1
  62. https://openscholar.huji.ac.il/sites/default/files/jstudies/files/_file_1408861790.pdf
  63. https://www.thetorah.com/article/rashis-revolutionary-commentary-deviates-from-midrash-why
  64. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/rashi-biblical-interpretation-and-latin-learning-in-medieval-europe/new-program-of-peshat-plain-sense-exegesis/812278FE382D4D16214C35F16BCCDFAA
  65. https://etzion.org.il/en/tanakh/studies-tanakh/biblical-commentaries/rashi2-when-does-rashi-cite-midrashim
  66. https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/476620/jewish/Rashis-Method-of-Biblical-Commentary.htm
  67. https://www.liverpooluniversitypress.co.uk/doi/pdf/10.18647/1200/JJS-1985?download=true
  68. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/310777529_The_Anxiety_of_Influence_Rashbam%27s_Approach_to_Rashi%27s_Commentary_on_the_Torah
  69. https://doi.org/10.5422/fordham/9780823264629.003.0008
  70. https://jewish-faculty.biu.ac.il/files/jewish-faculty/shared/JSIJ25/cohen.pdf
  71. https://liverpool.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.3828/liverpool/9781904113898.001.0001/upso-9781904113898-chapter-006
  72. https://kavvanah.blog/2019/06/27/interview-with-prof-eric-lawee-about-his-new-book-on-rashis-commentary/
  73. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.1086/721821
  74. https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/history/articles/eric-lawee-rashi
  75. https://seforimblog.com/2015/06/more-about-rashbam-on-genesis-chapter-1/
  76. https://thegemara.com/article/the-real-origins-of-the-rashi-rabbenu-tam-tefillin-dispute/
  77. https://www.morasha.com.br/en/prophets-and-wise-men/rabeinu-tam.html
  78. https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/29601/how-do-we-explain-the-criticism-of-rashi-by-his-grandsons
  79. https://etzion.org.il/en/tanakh/studies-tanakh/biblical-commentaries/rabbi-avraham-ibn-ezra-c-his-approach-midrash-and
  80. https://www.yu.edu/revel/2015/12/14/review-of-dr-lisa-fredmans-lecture-rashis-biblical-commentaries-can-we-know-what-rashi-actually-wrote
  81. https://www.kotzkblog.com/2022/11/407-nachmanides-vs-rashi-on-authority.html
  82. https://brill.com/display/book/edcoll/9789047402855/B9789047402855_s022.pdf
  83. https://booksnthoughts.com/rashi-marvelous-but-irrational/
  84. https://academic.oup.com/book/36506/chapter/321228349
  85. https://www.adraba.ca/rashi-the-timeless-influencer-of-jewish-learning/
  86. https://www.britannica.com/topic/tosafot
  87. https://www.sefaria.org/Rashi_on_Genesis
  88. https://www.academia.edu/45571372/Norman_Roth_Rashi_in_Norman_Roth_ed_Medieval_Jewish_Civilization_An_Encyclopedia_New_York_and_London_Routledge_2003_561_566
  89. https://www.yu.edu/news/straus/tanakh-study-and-its-discontents
  90. https://www.academia.edu/29901142/Nicholas_of_Lyra_and_His_Dependence_on_Rashi_A_Quick_Note
  91. https://oxfordinterfaithforum.org/thematic-international-interfaith-reading-groups/manuscripts-in-interfaith-contexts/a-medieval-franciscan-consults-the-jews-nicholas-of-lyra-on-how-to-imagine-the-temple/
  92. http://www.lineas.cchs.csic.es/inteleg/sites/lineas.cchs.csic.es.inteleg/files/Geiger-Lyra%2527s%2520Commentary.pdf
  93. https://www.gospelstudies.org.uk/medievalchurch/pdf/eq/nicolas-of-lyra_wood.pdf
  94. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/508448/summary
  95. https://jewishstudies.ace.fordham.edu/2021/03/14/jerusalem-illuminated-an-illustration-in-a-unique-manuscript-of-nicholas-of-lyras-commentary-of-ezekiel/
  96. https://foxcenterresearchcommons.wordpress.com/2018/11/20/rashis-influence-on-nicholas-of-lyra-and-the-wycliffite-translations-of-the-psalms/
  97. https://dynasty-auctions.com/en/items/rashis-commentary-on-the-bible-in-latin-translation-germany-1713-1714-three-volumes/
  98. https://www.sefaria.org/topics/rashi
  99. https://www.chabad.org/dailystudy/torahreading.htm
  100. https://jps.org/steven-sarah-levy-introduce-rashi-study-to-a-new-audience/
  101. https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/503077
  102. https://aish.com/saadiah-gaon-rashi-and-maimonides-how-three-rabbis-revolutionized-judaism/
  103. https://jewishaction.com/religion/jewish-thought/whats-the-truth-about-rashi-script/
  104. https://korenpub.com/blogs/blog/rashi-font-yahrtzeit-etc
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.