Raba says: We are always dealing with the case in which the first master has already renounced his right of possession.

And if the slave has been ransomed in order to be a slave, he serves his second master [farther on the question will be asked, from whom the second master bought him]; if ransomed to be free, he serves neither his first nor his second master; not his second master, since he bought the slave to give him his liberty; and not the first, since he had already renounced the slave. R. Simon b. Gamaliel, on the other hand, says: In the one case as in the other he remains a slave [of his first master], according to the principle of Hezekiah, who said: Why is it admitted that he remains a slave in either case? So that it should not be possible for any slave whatsoever to deliver himself up to the enemy and thus render himself independent of his master.

It is objected: R. Simon b. Gamaliel [we have been taught]

said to his colleagues: "Just as it is a duty to ransom free men, so it is a duty to ransom slaves." This Baraita is to be understood according to Abaye, who takes it that there had been no renunciation [who applies the Mishnah to the case in which there has been previous renunciation; then the first paragraph of the Mishnah is motived by the abstention of the owner, who did not ransom his slave]: we thus explain to ourselves the expression "just as" [of R. Simon b. Gamaliel, for he does not suppose that the owner abstained, granted that it is a duty to ransom the slave]. But, according to Raba, who takes it that there has been renunciation [who applies the Mishnah to the case in which there was renunciation, and the first paragraph of the Mishnah is motived by the abstention of the owner, which is equivalent to a renunciation], this "just as" [of R. Simon b. Gamaliel, what does it signify?], since R.

Simon b. Gamaliel bases his opinion upon the principle of Hezekiah [since the reason of R. Simon b. Gamaliel is the principle of Hezekiah: "so that the slave should not go and deliver himself up to the enemy"]. Raba replies, etc., (Gittin 37b).

What one least expects to find in a Talmudist is historic veracity. Yet it is not lacking in Rashi, either because he was guided by ancient and authentic traditions, or because he was inspired by his clear - sightedness, or - but this is apt to have been the case less frequently because he was well served by his power of divination. Rashi took good care not to confound the different generations of Tannaim and Amoraim, or the different rabbis in each. He knew the biographies of all of them, the countries of their birth, their masters and disciples, the period and the scene of their activity. Such knowledge was necessary not only in order to grasp the meaning of certain pa.s.sages, but also in order to decide which opinion was final and had the force of law. Rashi also tried to understand, and in turn render comprehensible, the customs and the by-gone inst.i.tutions to which the Talmud alludes. He gave information concerning the composition of the Mishnah and the Gemara, and the relations of the Mishnahs and the Baraitas. Because it contains all these data, Rashi's commentary is still a very valuable historical doc.u.ment, and Jewish historians of our days continue frequently to invoke its authority.

Yet in spite of this scattered information, the commentary is marked by certain deficiencies which indicate a deficiency in his mental make-up. When he explains an historical pa.s.sage of the Talmud, he is incapable of criticising [criticizing sic] it.

Apart from the fact that he would not believe legend to be legend, nor the Gemara capable of mistakes, he had neither the knowledge nor the scientific culture requisite for an historian.

To be convinced of this, it is necessary to read only the following pa.s.sage, in which the Talmud characteristically relates the final events before the downfall of the Jewish State. As before, I reproduce the Gemara along with the commentary of Rashi; but in translating the Gemara I antic.i.p.ate what Rashi says. It must be borne in mind that Rashi explains in Hebrew - in rabbinical Hebrew - text written in Aramaic.

R. Johanan says: what signifies this verse (Prov. xxviii. 14): "Happy is the man that feareth always [who trembles before the future and says to himself: provided that no misfortune befall me if I do such and such a thing], but he that hardeneth his heart shall fall into mischief"? For Kamza and Bar Kamza Jerusalem was destroyed; for a c.o.c.k and a hen the Royal Tower[110] was destroyed; for the side of a litter (rispak (Resh Yod Samech Pe Qof)) [the side of a lady's chariot, called reitwage (?) in German, as is said in the chapter "The mother and her young":[111] If thou yokest the mule to the litter rispak (Resh Yod Samech Pe Qof) for me], Betar was destroyed. For Kamza and Bar Kamza [names of two Jews] Jerusalem was destroyed. A man whose friend was Kamza [the name of whose friend was Kamza] and whose enemy was Bar Kamza prepared a banquet. He said to his servant: "Go, invite Kamza." The servant went to Bar Kamza. Finding him seated, the host said: "Since this man is (thou art) my enemy, why comest thou hither? Go, leave me." The other replied: "Since I have come, let me remain here, and I will give the price of what I shall eat and drink." "No," he answered [I will not let thee remain here]. "I will give thee," he [the other] insisted, "the half of the cost of the banquet." "No."

"I will give thee the price of the entire banquet." But he took him by the arm, and made him rise and go out. [The expelled man] said to himself: "Since the rabbis present at this scene did not protest, it must be that it pleased them.

Very well! I shall go and eat the morsel [of calumny] upon them in the presence of the governor." He went to the governor and said to Caesar: "The Jews are revolting against thee." Caesar replied: "Who told it thee?" "Send to them,"

replied the other, "a victim [to sacrifice it upon the altar; for we deduce from the repet.i.tion of the word "man" (in Lev.

xvii.) that the non-Jews can offer voluntary sacrifices, like the Israelites]; thou wilt see if they sacrifice it." Caesar sent a calf without a blemish, but in transit a blemish appeared on the large lip [the upper lip], others say on the lid of the eye (dokin (Dalet Vav Qof Yod Final_Nun)) ["tela,"[112] as in Is. xl. 22 Dok (Dalet Vav Qof)], which const.i.tutes a blemish for us, but not for the Romans [they could offer it to their G.o.ds on the high places, provided it did not lack a limb]. The rabbis were in favor of sacrificing the animal in the interest of public peace. Rabbi Zechariah b. Eukolos objected: "It will be said that you offer imperfect victims upon the altar." Then they wanted to kill [the messenger] so that he could not return and report what had happened. R. Zechariah objected: "It will be said that he who causes a blemish on a victim should be condemned to death"

[it will be thought that because he caused a blemish on the victim, and because he thus trangressed [transgressed sic] the prohibition: "There shall be no blemish therein" (Lev. xxii.

21), he was put to death]. R. Johanan concluded: It is this complaisance of R. Zechariah b. Eukolos [who did not wish to put the messenger to death] which destroyed our Temple, burned our Sanctuary, and exiled us from the land of our fathers (Gittin 55b)

This pa.s.sage is less historic than legendary in character; it forms part of the Haggadic element of the Talmud, In the explanation of the Haggadah Rashi has preserved its method, so wise, yet so simple. Others have attempted to be more profound in interpreting it allegorically. Rashi, with his fund of common sense, was nearer to the truth. His conception of the naive tales and beliefs was in itself naive. Moreover, before his time it was the legislative part of the Talmud that received almost exclusive attention. The rabbis occupied themselves with questions of practice and with making decisions, and they tried to unknot the entanglements of the discussions for the sake of extracting the norm, the definitive law. This is the case with Hananel, Rashi's predecessor, as well as with Alfasi,[113]

Rashi's contemporary. Although, as we shall see, the French rabbi had studied the Talmud for the sake of practical needs, he adopted, so to speak, a more disinterested point of view. He did not pretend to write a manual of Talmudic law, but an uninterrupted running commentary for the use of all who wanted to make a consecutive study of the Talmud.

In the treatise Baba Batra (73a), the Gemara having exhausted the few observations it had to present upon the Mishnah, which speaks of the sail of a vessel and its rigging, falls back upon some popular narratives, "Tales of the Sea."

Raba said [all the facts that will be recounted are in ill.u.s.tration of the verse (Psalms civ. 24), "O Lord, how manifold are thy works!" Some of the facts show that the righteous are recompensed in the world to come, or they serve to explain the verses of Job that speak of large birds, of the Behemot, and of the large cetaceans; in fact, "even the simple conversations of the rabbis must be instructive"]: Some sailors reported to me what follows: "The wave which engulfs [which tries to engulf] a vessel seems to have at its head [seems to be preceded by] a ray of white fire [a white flame, which is a wicked angel]. But we beat it with rods (alvata (Alef Lamed Vav Vav Tav Alef) [rods, as in these words 'neither with a rod ((Alef Lamed He)) nor with a lance'

in the treatise Shabbat (63a)], which bear these words graven on them: 'I am He who is, Yah, Eternal Zebaet, Amen, Selah'

[such is the lesson of the text[114] and then it is laid to rest" [from its agitation].

Raba recounts: Some sailors related to me that which follows: "Between one wave and another wave there are three hundred parasangs[115] [it is necessary to give us this detail, for later on it will be said that the one wave raised its voice to speak to the other; now, one can make oneself heard at a distance of three hundred parasangs], and the height of a wave is likewise three hundred parasangs. Once we were on a voyage, when a wave raised us [up to the heavens, higher than its own height; or the heat of the heavens is so great that it extends to a distance which one could traverse in nearly five hundred years, the distance of the heavens from the earth[116], so high that we saw the encampment [the dwelling] of a little star [of the smallest of stars]; it appeared so large to us, that one would have been able to sow on its surface forty measures of mustard seed [which is larger than other seeds], and if it had raised us more, we would have been burned by its fumes [by the heat of the star]. Then a wave raised its voice [that is, called, just as it is said, "Deep calleth unto deep"

(Psalms xlii. 7); or it may mean angels placed over the stars]

and said to its companion: 'My companion, have you left something in the world which you have not swallowed up [for it had lifted itself so high, you might have thought it had sprung from the bed of the sea and had engulfed the world]?

In that case I will go destroy it' [on account of the sins of man] - It said [the one wave replied to the other]: 'Behold the might of the Lord: I cannot by one thread [by the breadth of a thread] go beyond the sand '[that is to say: I cannot leave the bed of the sea]; thus it is said [it is the Gemara that cites this verse]: 'Fear ye not me?' saith the Lord.

'Will ye not tremble at my presence, which have placed the sand for the bound of the sea by a perpetual decree, that it cannot pa.s.s it?'" (Jer. v. 22).

Raba says: Hormin appeared to me, the son of Lillit [Hormin with an "n," such is the text which should be adopted, and which I get from my father; but I have learned from my masters that it should be read "Hormiz," with a "z," a word which means demon, as we see in Sanhedrin (39a) "the lower half of thy body belongs to Hormiz[117], running along the edge of the wall of Mahuza [This account makes us realize the goodness of G.o.d who loves his creatures and does not permit evil spirits to injure them; it also teaches us that one must not risk oneself alone on a voyage]; at the same moment a horseman galloped by [without thinking of evil], and he could not catch up to him [for the demon ran so quickly, that the horseman could not think of overtaking him].

In conclusion I will give one more extract, from the last chapter of Sanhedrin (92b), which contains a vast number of curious legends.

Our rabbis taught: Six miracles occurred on that day [the day on which Nebuchadnezzar threw the friends of Daniel into the furnace]. These are: the furnace raised itself [for it was sunk in the ground, like a lime-kiln; on that day it raised itself to the surface of the ground, so that all could see the miracle]; the furnace was rent in two [a part of its walls was riven so that all could look in]; humak suro (He Vav Mem Qof, Samech Vav Resh Vav) [its height was lowered, as in the phrase suro ka (Samech Vav Resh Vav, Resh Ayin) (Kiddushin 82a); another reading humak duso (He Vav Mem Qof, Dalet Vav Samech Vav) like yesodo (Yod Samech Vav Dalet Vav) its base was thrown. This is the explanation taught me by R. Jacob ben Yakar; but my master[118] reads (He Vav Samech Qof, Samech Yod Dalet, Vav): the lime of the furnace melted as a result of the great heat. Such are the explanations of my masters. It was from the heat thrown out by the lime that those men were consumed who cast Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah into the burning fiery furnace and that the golden image of the king was transformed before his eyes]; the image of the king was transformed before his eyes; the four empires were consumed by the flames [the kings and their subjects, who aided Nebuchadnezzar in casting Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah into the fire]; finally, Ezekiel brought the dead to life in the plain of Dura.[119]

What has been said up to this point indicates the position taken by Rashi with regard to the Halakah. Unlike Maimonides in his commentary of the Mishnah, he did not as a rule concern himself with the fixation of legal principles and practice, or with the definite solution of questions under controversy. He confined himself to his task of commentator and interpreter. The brevity he imposed upon himself made it an obligation not to enter into long and detailed discussions; for he would have had to dispose of varying opinions and justify his choice. He carried his principle to such an extent that it could be said of him, "Rashi is a commentator, he does not make decisions."[120]

But there are numerous exceptions to the rule. Often Rashi deems it necessary to state a definite solution, either because it has been the subject of controversies on the part of his masters, or because it was difficult to separate it from the rest of the discussion, or because it served as the point of departure for another discussion. Finally, the explanation of such and such a pa.s.sage of the Talmud presupposes the solution of a question, unless the solution changes with the explanation of the pa.s.sage.

When the question is left in suspense by the Talmud, Rashi usually determines it in the strictest sense; but when it receives contradictory solutions, he either falls back upon a.n.a.logous cases or adduces rules of Talmudic methodology. Often, however, his conclusion is nothing else than a statement of the practice observed in his time.

In all these cases Rashi's authority carries great weight; so much so, in fact, as to overbalance that of Alfasi and Maimonides. Frequent appeal was made to it by casuists of a later date, and it would have been invoked still oftener had his Decisions been gathered together, like those of the Spanish and German rabbis, instead of having been scattered through a large number of compilations.

By reason of these and other qualities the Talmudic commentaries of Rashi without doubt outweigh his Biblical commentaries. I should be inclined flatly to contradict the opinion ascribed to Jacob Tam, Rashi's grandson: "So far as my grandfather's commentary on the Talmud is concerned, I might do as much, but it would not be in my power to undertake his commentary upon the Pentateuch." The Biblical commentary is not always absolutely sure and certain, and the defects are marked. The Talmudic commentary remains a model and indispensable guide. Although numerous Biblical commentaries have been composed with Rashi's as a standard and in order to replace it, no one has dared provide a subst.i.tute for his Talmudic commentary. From an historical point of view, the value of the Talmudic commentary is no less great.

At the same period, in three countries, three works were composed which complemented one another and which came to form the basis of Talmudic studies. At the time when Rashi commented on the Talmud, Nathan ben Jehiel[121] composed the Talmudic lexicon, which is still used to a great extent, while Isaac Alfasi in his Halakot codified all the Talmudic regulations. Of the three works the first was the most celebrated. The exaggerated statement was made of Rashi, that "without him the Talmud would have remained a closed book."[122] And Menahem ben Zerah[123]

said: "There was no one so illuminating, and so concise as Rashi in the commentary he wrote as if by Divine inspiration. Without him, the Babylonian Talmud would have been forgotten in Israel."

The echo of this enthusiastic opinion is heard in the words of the Hebrew scholar H. L. Strack, a Christian, and the modern Jewish scholar A. Darmesteter. The one says: "Rashi wrote a commentary which the Jews hold in extraordinarily high regard and which all must concede is of the greatest value." Darmesteter wrote: "Suppress the commentary of Rashi, that masterwork of precision and clearness, and even for a trained Talmudist, the Talmud becomes almost enigmatical."

Can more be said? The commentary has become, in brief, The Commentary, the Commentary par excellence, Konteros (Gommentarius).

CHAPTER VIII

THE RESPONSA

In the previous chapter we saw that Rashi, though chiefly concerned with the mere explanation of the Talmud, nevertheless intrenched sometimes upon the domain of practice. It must not be forgotten that at that epoch the life of the Jews was based upon, and directed by, rabbinical jurisprudence and discipline. The study of the Talmud was taken up for the sake of finding in it rules for the daily conduct of existence. Apart from certain questions purely theoretic in character and having no practical application, Talmudic studies, far from being confined to the school, responded to the needs of life and were of real, vital interest. But since the Talmud is not allcomprehensive, the rabbis in drawing inspiration from its rules, from precedents it had already established, and from a.n.a.logous instances contained in it, were justified in rendering decisions upon new points arising out of circ.u.mstances as they occurred. Thus, measures are cited pa.s.sed by Rashi upon the payment of taxes, Christian wine, the Mezuzah, phylacteries, etc. These measures resulted not so much from his own initiative as from the requests preferred to him by his disciples, or by other rabbis, or even by private individuals.

The Responsa addressed by rabbinical authorities to individuals or to communities who had submitted difficult cases and questions to them for solution, const.i.tute a special genus of post-Biblical literature. Not to mention their legislative value, how precious they are as doc.u.ments in proof of the fact that no distances were too long, no obstacles too great to prevent the people from obtaining the opinion of a scholar! They even sent special messengers to him, when there were no favoring circ.u.mstances, such as a fair at the rabbi's place of residence, or a journey to be undertaken thither for other reasons than the purpose of the consultation. Thus lively relations were established among the Jews of the most widely separated countries; and an active correspondence went on between scholars of Babylon, Northern Africa, Spain, France, Germany, and Italy.

The circle of Rashi's connections, however, was limited to France and Lorraine. His chief correspondents were his teachers and their disciples.[124] It was only after Rashi's day, when communication between the Christian and the Moslem worlds became more frequent, that rabbinical authorities were appealed to from all the corners of Europe and Africa.

Though his correspondents were not so widely scattered, the subjects touched upon by Rashi in his Responsa are very varied in character. He was consulted on the meaning of a Biblical or a Talmudic pa.s.sage, on the text of the liturgy, on rules of grammar, on Biblical chronology, and, especially, on new cases arising in the practice of religion. These Responsa, inspired, so to speak, by actualities, by the come and go of daily affairs, introduce the reader to the material and intellectual life of the Jews of the time, besides furnishing interesting information concerning the master's method.

One of the questions most frequently agitated regarded wine of the Gentiles, the drinking of which was prohibited to the Jews because it was feared that the wine had been employed for idolatrous libations. Cases of this kind turned up every day, because the Jews occupied themselves with viticulture[125] and maintained constant communication with the Christians. Rashi showed himself rather liberal. Though, of course, forbidding Jews to taste the wine, he permitted them to derive other enjoyment from it, the Christians not being comparable to the pagans, since they observed the Noachian laws. Rashi's grandson, Samuel ben Meir, explicitly states in Rashi's name that the laws set forth by the Talmud against the Gentiles do not apply to the Christians.

The brother of Samuel, Jacob Tam, tells us that Rashi forbade the payment of a tax by using a sum of money left on deposit by a Christian. This decision, Jacob Tam adds, was intended to apply to the whole kingdom and, in fact, was accepted throughout France. This testifies not only to the great authority Rashi enjoyed, but also to the uprightness, the honesty of his character. Another of his qualities becomes apparent in a second Responsum treating of the relations between Jews and Christians.

They carried on trade with each other in wheat and cattle. Now, the Mishnah forbids these transactions. "When this prohibition was promulgated," wrote Rashi, "the Jews all dwelt together and could carry on commerce with one another; but at present, when we are a minority in the midst of our neighbors, we cannot conform to so disastrous a measure." Rashi, it is therefore evident, knew how to take into account the needs of the moment, and accommodate rules to conditions.

Relations, then, between the Jews and their fellow citizens were cordial. The horizon seemed serene. But if one looked closer, one could see the gathering clouds slowly encroaching upon the calm sky, clouds which were soon to burst in a storm of b.l.o.o.d.y hate and murderous ferocity. Although the change came about imperceptibly and the Jews enjoyed the calm preceding the tempest, despite this and despite themselves, they entertained a smothered distrust of the Christians. For instance, they used ugly expressions to designate objects the Christians venerated.

The Christians responded in kind. The ecclesiastical works of the time are full of insults and terms of opprobrium aimed at the Jews. If one reads the narrative of the Crusades, during which the blood of innocent ma.s.sacred Jews flowed in streams, one must perforce excuse, not so much real hostility toward the Christians, as the employment of malicious expressions directed against their worship. The feeling that existed was rather the heritage of tradition, the ancient rivalry of two sister religions, than true animosity. As for tolerance, no such thing yet existed. It was difficult at that time for people to conceive of benevolence and esteem for those who professed a different belief. The effect of the First Crusade upon the inner life of the communities was to create anomalous situations within families, necessitating the intervention of rabbinical authorities. The Responsa of Rashi dealing with martyrs and converts no doubt sprang from these sad conditions. A woman, whose husband died during the persecution, married again without having previously claimed her jointure from the heirs of her dead husband; but she wanted to insist on her rights after having contracted the new union. Rashi, in a Responsum, the conclusions of which were attacked after his death by several rabbis, declared that the claim of the woman was ent.i.tled to consideration.

The echo of the Crusades is heard in other instances. I have already spoken of the liberal, tolerant att.i.tude[126] a.s.sumed by Rashi in regard to the unfortunates who deserted the faith of their fathers in appearance only, and sought refuge in that of their persecutors. He excused the hypocrisy of these weak beings, who accepted baptism only externally and in their hearts remained Jews.

In general, so far as questions in regard to lending on interest, to giving testimony, and to marriage relations were concerned, Rashi held the apostate to be the same as the Jew. He was once asked if the testimony of an apostate was valid in law. "It is necessary," he replied "to distinguish in favor of those who follow the Jewish law in secret and are not suspected of transgressing the religious precepts which the Christians oblige them to transgress outwardly. At bottom they fear G.o.d. They weep and groan over the constraint put upon them, and implore pardon of G.o.d. But if there is a suspicion that they committed transgressions without having been forced to do so, even if they have repented with all their heart, and all their soul, and all their might, they cannot bring evidence ex post facto concerning facts which they witnessed before they repented."

Rashi, then, was indulgent above all toward those who had been converted under the compulsion of violence, and who sincerely regretted their involuntary or imposed apostasy. On one occasion, he was asked if the wine belonging to such unfortunates should be forbidden, though they had proved their return to the Jewish faith by a long period of penitence. Rashi replied: "Let us be careful not to take measures for isolating them and thereby wounding them. Their defection was made under the menace of the sword, and they hastened to return from their wanderings."

Elsewhere Rashi objects to recalling to them their momentary infidelity. A young girl was married while she and her bridegroom were in the state of forced apostasy. Rashi declared the union to be valid, for "even if a Jew becomes a convert voluntarily, the marriage he contracts is valid. All the more is this true in the case of those who are converted by force, and whose heart always stays with G.o.d, and especially, as in the present case, if they have escaped as soon as they could from the faith they embraced through compulsion."

Since internal union is the surest safeguard against persecution from without, Rashi earnestly exhorted his brethren to shun intestine strife. "Apply yourselves to the cultivation of peace," he once wrote. "See how your neighbors are troubled by the greatest evils and how the Christians delight in them.

Concord will be your buckler against envy and prevent it from dominating you." In a community, doubtless that of Chalons- sur-Saone, in Burgundy,[127] there were two families that quarrelled [quarreled sic] continually. The community had intervened to stop the strife, but one of the two families declared in advance that it would not submit to its decision. A member of the other family, irritated, reproached one of his enemies with having been baptized. Now Rabbenu Gershom, under penalty of excommunication, had forbidden people to recall his apostasy to a converted Jew. Rashi was asked to remove this prohibition; but he declined, not wishing to intervene in the internal administration of a strange community. "What am I that I should consider myself an authority in other places?... I am a man of little importance, and my hands are feeble, like those of an orphan. If I were in the midst of you, I would join with you in annulling the interdiction." From this it is evident that the strongest weapon of the rabbinical authorities against the intractable was, as in the Church, excommunication; but that sometimes individuals a.s.serted, and even swore in advance, that they would not yield to the decree against them. Rashi considered that this oath, being contrary to law, was null and void.

Rashi, guided by the same feelings, was pitiless in his condemnation of those who fomented trouble, who sowed discord in families, sometimes in their own households. A man, after having made promise to a young girl, refused to marry her and was upheld in his intrigues by a disciple of Rashi. Rashi displayed great severity toward the faithless man for his treatment of the girl, and he was not sparing even in his denunciation of the accomplice. Another man slandered his wife, declaring that she suffered from a loathsome disease, and through his lying charges he obtained a divorce from her. But the truth came to light, and Rashi could not find terms sufficiently scathing to denounce a man who had recourse to such base calumnies and sullied his own hearth. "He is unworthy," Rashi wrote, "to belong to the race of Abraham, whose descendants are always full of pity for the unfortunate; and all the more for a woman to whom one is bound in marriage. We see that even those who do not believe in G.o.d respect the purity of the home, - and here is a man who has conducted himself so unworthily toward a daughter of our Heavenly Father." After indicating what course is to be pursued in case of divorce, Rashi concluded: "But it would be better if this man were to make good his mistake and take back his wife, so that G.o.d may take pity on him, and he may have the good fortune to build up his home again and live in peace and happiness."

The Responsa, providing us, as we have seen, with interesting information concerning Rashi's character, are no less important for giving us knowledge of his legal and religious opinions. As a result of the poise of his nature, and in the interest of order, he attached great importance to traditional usages and customs. Innovations are dangerous, because they may foment trouble; to abide by custom, on the contrary, is the surest guarantee of tranquillity [tranquility sic]. In casuistical questions not yet solved, he did not adopt as his principle the one prevailing with so many rabbis, of rendering the strictest decision; on the contrary, in regard to many matters, he was more liberal than his masters or his colleagues. Nevertheless, he congratulated those whose interpretation in certain cases was more severe than his own. In his scrupulous piety, he observed certain practices, although he refused to set them up as laws for others, since, one of his disciples tells us, he did not wish to arrogate to himself the glory of inst.i.tuting a rule for the future. He contented himself with saying: "Blessed be he who does this." Since he stuck to the rigid observance of religion, and feared to open the door to abuses, he advised his pupils not to give too much publicity to certain of his easy interpretations of the Law.

If he did not approve of laxity, he had still less sympathy with the extreme piety bordering on folly of those whom he called "crazy saints." Enemy to every exaggeration, he blamed those who, for example, imposed upon themselves two consecutive fast days. Once when the Fast of Esther fell on a Thursday, a woman applied to Rashi for advice. She told him she was compelled to accompany her mistress on a trip, and asked him whether she might fast the next day. Rashi in his Responsum first recalled the fact that the Fast of Esther was not mentioned either in the Bible or in the Talmud, and then declared that the over- conscientious Jews who fast on Friday in order to make a feast day follow close upon a fast day, deserve to be called fools who walk in darkness.[128]

Finally, although Rashi was very scrupulous in matters of religion, he was tolerant toward faults and failings in others.

Sinners and, as I have shown, even apostates found grace with him. He liked to repeat the Talmudic saying to which, in generalizing it, he gave a new meaning, "An Israelite, even a sinful one, remains an Israelite."

There is little to say concerning the style of Rashi's Responsa.

In the setting forth and the discussion of the questions under consideration, his usual qualities are present - precision, clearness, soberness of judgment. But the preambles - sometimes a bit prolix - are written after the fashion prevailing among the rabbis of the time, in a complicated, pretentious style, often affecting the form of rhymed prose and always in a poetic jargon.

With this exception, the Responsa do not betray the least straining after effect, the least literary refinement. The very fact that Rashi did not himself take the precaution to collect his Responsa, proves how little he cared to make a show with them, though, it is true, the custom of gathering together one's Responsa did not arise until later, originating in Spain, and pa.s.sing on to Germany. As I shall immediately proceed to show, it was Rashi's disciples who collected the Responsa of their master and preserved them for us, at least in part.