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. Consequently other quotations will serve a purpose.

2. THE SACRIFICE OF ISAAC (Gen. xxii. 1)

1. After these words]. Some of our teachers explain the expression: "after the words of Satan," who said to G.o.d Of all his meals Abraham sacrifices nothing to Thee, neithe a bull nor a ram. He would sacrifice his son, replied G.o.d if I told him to do it. Others say: "after the words of Ishmael,"

who boasted of having undergone circ.u.mcision when he was thirteen years old, and to whom Isaac answered: If G.o.d demanded of me the sacrifice of my entire being, I would do what he demanded. Abraham said: Behold, here I am].

Such is the humility of pious men; for this expression indicates that one is humble, ready to obey.

2. G.o.d said: Take now]. This is a formula of prayer; G.o.d seems to say to Abraham: I pray thee, submit thyself to this test, so that thy faith shall not be doubted. Thy son]. I have two sons, replied Abraham. Thine only son]. But each is the only son of his mother. Whom thou lovest]. I love them both. Isaac]. Why did not G.o.d name Isaac immediately? In order to trouble Abraham, and also to reward him for each word, etc.

All these explanations are drawn from Talmudic (Sanhedrim 89b) and Midrashic (Beres.h.i.t Rabba and Tanhuma) sources. The meaning of the pa.s.sage 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 on the Song of the Red Sea, the text of which offers more difficulties.

3. SONG OF THE RED SEA (Ex. xv. 1)

1. Then sang Moses]. "Then": when Moses saw the miracle, he had the idea of singing a song; similar construction in Josh. x. 12, I Kings vii. 8. Moses said to himself that he would sing, and that is what he did. Moses and the children of Israel "spake, saying, I will sing unto the Lord." The future tense is to be explained in the same way as in Josh. x. 12 (Joshua, seeing the miracle, conceived the idea of singing a song, "and he said in the sight of Israel,"

etc.), in Num. xxi. 17 ("Then Israel sang this song, Spring up, O well; sing ye unto it"), and in I Kings xi. 7 (thus explained by the sages of Israel: "Solomon wished to build a high place, but he did not build it"). The "yod" (of the future) applies to the conception. Such is the natural meaning of the verse. But, according to the Midrashic interpretation, our rabbis see in it an allusion to the resurrection, and they explain it in the same fashion as the other pa.s.sages, with the exception of the verse in Kings, which they translate: "Solomon wished to build a high place, but he did not build it." But our verse cannot be explained like those in which the future is employed, although the action takes place immediately, as in Job i. 5 ("Thus did Job"); Num. ix. 23 ("The Israelites rested in their tents at the commandment of the Lord") and 20 ("when the cloud was a few days"), because here the action is continued and is expressed as well by the future as by the past. But our song having been sung only at a certain moment, the explanation does not apply.

Ki gaoh gaah (Kaf Yod, Gimel Alef with holam He, Gimel with qamats, Alef with qamats He)]. As the Targum[68] translates.

Another explanation: "He is most exalted," above all praise, and however numerous our eulogies, I could add to them; such is not the human king whom one praises without reason. The horse and his rider] - The one attached to the other; the waters carried them off and they descended together into the sea. Ramah (Resh Mem He) (hath He thrown)] like hishlich (He Shin Lamed Yod Final_Kaf); the same as in Dan. iii. 21. The Haggadic Midrash[69] gives this explanation: one verse employs the verb (Yod Resh He) the other the verb Ramah (Resh Mem He) which teaches us that the Egyptians mounted into the air in order then to descend into the ocean. The same as in Job x.x.xviii.

6, "who laid (yarah (Yod Resh He) ) the corner stone thereof" from top to bottom?

2. Ozi vezimrat yah vayei li lishuah (Ayin Zayin Yod, Vav Zayin Mem Resh Tav, Yod He, Vav Yod He Yod, Lamed Yod, Lamed Yod Shin Vav Ayin He)]. Onkelos translates: my strength and my song of praise. He therefore explains ohzi (Ayin with qamats Zayin with dagesh and hiriq Yod) as uzi (Ayin with qubuts, Zayin with dagesh and hiriq Yod) and vezimrat (Vav Zayin Mem Resh Tav) as vezimrati (Vav Zayin Mem Resh Tav Yod) But I am astonished at the vowelling of the first word, which is unique in Scriptures, if an exception is made of the three pa.s.sages in which the two words are joined. In all other places it is provided with the vowel "u", for example in Jer. xvi. 19 and Psalms lix. 10. In general, when a word of two letters contains the vowel "o", if it is lengthened by a third letter, and if the second letter has no "sheva", the first takes an "u": oz (Ayin with holam Zayin) makes rok, uzi (Resh with sin dot Qof, Ayin with qubuts Zayin with dagesh Yod makes jok, ruki (Het Qof, Resh with qubuts Qof with dagesh and hiriq Yod) makes ol, juki (Ayin with holam Lamed, Het with qubuts Qof with dagesh and hiriq Yod makes kol ulo (Kaf with holam Lamed, Ayin with qubuts Lamed with dagesh Vav)[70] makes kulo (Kaf with qubuts Lamed with dagesh Vav), as in Exodus xiv. 7. On the contrary, the three other pa.s.sages, namely, our pa.s.sage, the one in Is. (xii. 2), and that in Psalms (cxviii. 14), have ozi (Ayin Zayin Yod) vowelled with a short "o"; moreover, these verses do not have vezimrati (Vav Zayin Mem Resh Tav Yod) but vezimrat (Vav Zayin Mem Resh Tav), and all continue with vayei li lishuah (Vav Yod He Yod, Lamed Yod, Lamed Yod Shin Vav Ayin He). And to give a full explanation of this verse, it is in my opinion necessary to say that ohzi (Ayin with qamats Zayin with dagesh Yod) is not equivalent to uzi (Ayin with qubuts Zayin with dagesh Yod nor vezimrat (Vav Zayin Mem Resh Tav) to vezimrati (Vav Zayin Mem Resh Tav Yod), but that ohzi (Ayin with qamats Zayin with dagesh Yod) is a substantive (without a possessive suffix, but provided with a paragogic "yod"), as in Psalm cxxiii. 1, Obadiah 3, Deut. x.x.xiii. 16. The eulogy (of the Hebrews) therefore signifies: it is the strength and the vengeance of G.o.d that have been my salvation. vezimrat (Vav Zayin Mem Resh Tav) is thus in the construct with the word G.o.d, exactly as in Judges v.23, Is. ix. 18, Eccl. iii. 18. As for the word vezimrat (Vav Zayin Mem Resh Tav) it has the meaning which the same root has in Lev. xxv. 4 ("thou shalt not prune") and in Is. xxv. 5; that is to say, "to cut". The meaning of our verse, then, is: "The strength and the vengeance of our Lord have been our salvation." One must not be astonished that the text uses vayehi (Vav Yod He Yod) (imperfect changed to past) and not haiah (He Yod He) (perfect): for the same construction occurs in other verses; for example, I Kings vi. 5, II Chron. x. 17[71], Num.

xiv. 16 and 36, Ex. ix. 21.

He is my G.o.d]. He appeared to them in His majesty, and they pointed Him out to one another with their finger.[72]

The last of the servants saw G.o.d, on this occasion, as the Prophets themselves never saw Him. veanvehu (Vav Alef Nun Vav He Vav)]. The Targum sees in this word the meaning of "habitation"[73] as in Is. x.x.xiii. 20, lxv. 10. According to another explanation the word signifies "to adorn," and the meaning would be: "I wish to celebrate the beauty and sing the praise of G.o.d in all His creatures," as it is developed in the Song of Songs; see v.9 et seq.[74] My father's G.o.d]. He is; and I will exalt Him. My father's G.o.d]. I am not the first who received this consecration; but on the contrary His holiness and His divinity have continued to rest upon me from the time of my ancestors.

In the above the text calls only for the embellishments of the Haggadah. In the following pa.s.sage from Rashi's commentaries the place allotted to Derash is more limited.

4. CONSTRUCTION OF THE TABERNACLE (Ex. xxv. 1 et seq.)

2. Speak unto the children of Israel, that they bring me an offering]. To me; in my honor. An offering (terumah (Tav Resh Vav Mem He)), a levy; let them make a levy upon their goods. Of every man that giveth it willingly with his heart (idbenu (Yod Dalet Bet Nun Vav)), same meaning as nedava (Nun Dalet Bet He), that is to say, a voluntary and spontaneous gift.[75] Ye shall take my offering] Our sages say: Three offerings are prescribed by this pa.s.sage, one of a beka from each person, used for a pedestal, as will be shown in detail in Eleh Pekude[76]; the second, the contribution of the altar, consisting of a beka from each person, thrown into the coffers for the purchase of congre gational sacrifices; and, third, the contribution for the Tabernacle, a free-will offering. The thirteen kinds of material to be mentioned were all necessary for the construction of the Tabernacle and for the making of priestly vestments, as will be evident from a close examination.

3. Gold, and silver, and bra.s.s]. All these were offered voluntarily, each man giving what he wished, except silver, of which each brought the same quant.i.ty, a half-shekel a person.

In the entire pa.s.sage relating to the construction of the Tabernacle, we do not see that more silver was needed; this is shown by Ex. x.x.xviii. 27. The rest of the silver, voluntarily offered, was used for making the sacred vessels.

4. Tejelet (Tav Kaf Lamed Tav)]. Wool dyed in the blood of the halazon[77] and of a greenish color.

viargaman (Vav Alef Resh Gimel Mem Final_Nun)]. Wool dyed with a sort of coloring matter bearing this name.

Vasmesh (Vav Shin Shin)]. Linen. izim (Ayin Zayin Yod Final_Mem)]. Goats' hair; this is why Onkelos translates it by mazi (Mem Ayin Zayin Yod), but not "goats," which he would have rendered by azia (Ayin Zayin Yod Alef).

5. And rams' skins dyed red]. Dyed red after having been dressed. techashim (Tav Het Shin Yod Final_Mem].

A sort of animal created for the purpose and having various colors; that is why the Targum translates the word by isasgona (Yod Samekh Samekh Gimel Vav Nun Alef), "he rejoices in his colors and boasts of them."[78] And s.h.i.ttim wood] - But whence did the Israelites in the desert obtain it? R. Tanhuma explains: The patriarch Jacob, thanks to a Divine revelation, had foreseen that one day his descendants would construct a Tabernacle in the desert. He, therefore, carried s.h.i.ttim trees into Egypt, and planted them there, advising his sons to take them along with them when they left the country.

6. Oil for the light]. "Pure oil olive beaten for the light, to cause the lamp to burn always."[79]

Spices for anointing oil]. Prepared for the purpose of anointing both the vessels of the Tabernacle and the Tabernacle itself. Spices entered into the composition of this oil, as is said in KKi-Tissa.[80] And for sweet incense] which was burned night and morning, as is described in detail in Tezaweh.[81] As to the word ketoret (Qof Mem Resh Tav), it comes from the rising of the smoke (Kitor (Qof Mem Vav Resh)).

7. Onyx stones]. Two were needed for the ephod, described in Tezaweh.[82] And stones to be set]

for an ouch of gold was made in which the stones were set, entirely filling it. These stones are called "stones to be set." As to the bezel it is called mishbetzet (Mem Shin Bet Tsadi Tav. In the ephod, and in the breastplate]. Onyx stones for the ephod and "stones to be set" for the breastplate. The breastplate as well as the ephod are described in Tezaweh[83]; they are two sorts of ornaments.

If these citations did not suffice, his anti-Christian 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 a.s.saults 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 pa.s.sage to the Messiah; but in order to refute the Minim, it is better to apply it to David."

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 a.s.sert itself, and free him from the tentacles of the Talmud and the Midrash.

Now that we have formulated our grievance against Rashi, it is fair that we try to justify him by recalling the ideas prevailing at the time, and the needs he wished to satisfy.

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 French-Jewish 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 study-especially of the Pentateuch-with 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 p.r.i.c.ks. 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 following commentary on Psalm xxiii:

A Psalm of David]. Our rabbis say: The formula "Psalm of David" indicates that David at first played the instrument, then was favored by Divine inspiration. It, therefore, signifies, Psalm to give inspiration to David. On the other hand, when it is said "To David, a Psalm,"[85] the formula indicates that David, having received Divine inspiration, sang a song in consequence of the revelation.

1. The Lord is my Shepherd; I shall not want]. In this desert in which I wander I am full of trust, sure that I shall lack nothing.

2. He maketh me to lie down in green pastures]. In a place to dwell where gra.s.s grows. The poet, having begun by comparing his sustenance to the pasturing of animals, in the words, "The Lord Is my Shepherd," continues the image. This Psalm was recited by David in the forest of Hereth, which was so called because it was arid as clay (heres), but it was watered by G.o.d with all the delights of the next world (Midrash on the Psalms).

3. He will restore my soul]. My soul, benumbed by misfortunes and by my flight, He will restore to its former estate. He will lead me in the paths of righteousness]

along the straight highway so that I may not fall into the hands of my enemies.

4. Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil]. In the country of shadows this applies to the wilderness of Ziph.[86] The word tzalmavet (Tsadi Lamed Mem Vov Tav) here employed always signifies "utter darkness"[87]; this is the way in which it is explained by Dunash ben Labrat[88]. Thy rod and thy staff they comfort me]. The sufferings I have undergone and my reliance, my trust, in Thy goodness are my two consolations, for they bring me pardon for my faults, and I am sure that

5. Thou wilt prepare a table before me], that is, royalty. Thou hast anointed my head with oil]. I have already been consecrated king at Thy command. My cup runneth over]. An expression signifying abundance.

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 s.p.a.ce to the legal exegesis of the Talmud, Mendelssohn's example will make us more tolerant toward him - Mendelssohn who himself could not always steer clear of this method.

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 ma.s.ses, 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 text-book 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 unscientific and irrational.

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 ma.s.ses 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 tenth centuries.

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 time? The testimony of his grandson upon this point is explicit:

"The friends of reason," said Samuel ben Meir, "should steep themselves in this principle of our sages, that natural exegesis can never be superseded. It is true that the chief aim of the Torah was to outline for us rules of religious conduct, which we discover behind the literal meaning through Haggadic and Halakic interpretation. And the ancients, moved by their piety, occupied themselves only with Midrashic exegesis as being the most important, and they failed to dwell at great length upon the literal meaning. Add to this the fact that the scholars advise us not to philosophize too much upon the Scriptures. And R. Solomon, my maternal grandfather, the Torch of the Captivity, who commented on the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa, devoted himself to the development of the natural meaning of the text; and I, Samuel son of Meir, discussed his explanations with him and before him, and he confessed to me that if he had had the leisure, he would have deemed it necessary to do his work all over again by availing himself of the explanations that suggest themselves day after day."[90]

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 surpa.s.s 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 material.

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 Rashi, somewhat rudimentary, but very advanced for the time.

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 l.u.s.tre [l.u.s.ter 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 surpa.s.sed 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 arriere-pensee so to speak. Rashi's exegesis was more ingenuous and, therefore, more objective.