Many people think Rashi is the great commentator of the plain meaning and while its certainly true that Rashi is one of the greatest commentators, it is not necessarily true wrt the plain meaning.
Though he often mentions that he has come to explain the plain meaning, his commentary when compared with especially midrashim, is full of these explanations. This has led to his grandson, the Rashbam, taking up the work of delivering strictly the plain meaning, to the extent that he even explains the passage concerning Tefilin as symbolical and not literal (note that the Rashbam did wear Tefilin himself).
Heres a couple of examples from the Torah-reading Beha’alotcha.
Rashi comments on 12:1 “Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses…”
SPOKE – Forms of the word דבור in all places in Scripture are (mean) nothing but harsh language…. And forms of the word אמירה in all places in Scripture are (mean) nothing but supplicative language… Every word נא, a supplicative expression, in these examples denotes request.
Compare this to Midrash Tanchuma Tzav Ch. 13:
אין נא אלא לשון בקשה – [the word] נא is nothing but supplicative language/expression
Continuing the Midrash says:
ואין דבור בכל מקום אלא לשון קשה – and [the word] דבור in all places is nothing but hard language
And lastly:
ואין אמירה אלא תחנונים – and [the word] אמירה is nothing but supplications.
Now these are fairly plain you would say and I would agree, but here is another example:
MIRIAM, AS WELL AS AARON, SPOKE – She initiated the speaking. This is why Scripture puts her first, ahead of Aaron. And from where did Miriam know that Moses separated himself from the woman, i.e. his wife? The Tanna R’ Nassan says: Miriam was at Zipporah’s side at the time when it was said to Moses “Eldad and Medad are prophesying in the camp.” When Zipporah heard this, she said “Woe to the wives of these, Eldad and Medad, if they will be charged with prophecy, in the manner that my husband, Moses, separated from me.” From there Miriam knew that Moses had separated from his wife, and she told Aaron. Now if Miriam, who did no intend to speak of his disparagement, was thus punished, how much more so one who speaks of the disparagement of his fellow.
The Midrash says:
ולמה אמר תחלה מרים ואחר כך אהרן. אלא שהיא פתחה בדבר תחלה, ולפיכך הקדימה הכתוב. ומה אמרו, הרק אך במשה דבר ה’ (במד’ יב ב), כלומר, במשה דבר ה’ לבדו, שפירש מאשתו. הלא גם בנו דבר (שם), כמו כן דבר עמנו ולא פירשנו מדרך ארץ.
ומנין היתה יודעת מרים שפירש משה מן האשה. רבי נתן אומר, מרים היתה בצד צפורה כשאמרו למשה אלדד ומידד מתנבאים במחנה (שם יא כז). וכיון ששמעה צפורה, אמרה, אוי להם לנשותיהם של אלו.
ומאיזה זמן פירש משה מדרך ארץ, אלא בשעה שאמר הקדוש ברוך הוא למשה בסיני קודם מתן תורה שיקדש את העם ואמר להם, לשלשת ימים אל תגשו אל אשה (שמות יט טו), פירשו הם מנשותיהם ופירש משה מאשתו. ואחר מתן תורה אמר ליה הקדוש ברוך הוא, לך אמור להם, שובו לכם לאהליכם, ואתה פה עמוד עמדי (דב’ ה ל-לא), ואל תשוב לדרך ארץ.
וכשאמרה צפורה אוי לנשותיהן של אלו, הן נזקקין לנבואה שיהו פורשין מנשותיהם כמו שפירש בעלי הימני. ומשם ידעה מרים והגידה לאהרן.
ומה מרים שלא נתכוונה לגנותו של משה, נענשה. קל וחמר למספר בגנותו של חבירו ובלשון הרע, ילקה האדם בצרעת.
And why does Miriam speak first and afterwards Aaron? Only because that she opened/initiated the speaking first, and therefore Scripture puts her first. And why did they say: “is it only to Moses that Hashem spoke?” (Num 12:2), that is to say, to Moses spoke Hashem alone [so(?)] that he separated from his wife. “Did He not speak with us as well”, as he spoke with us and we did not separate from the way of the world.
And from where did Miriam know that Moses separated from the wife? Rabbi Nathan says, Miriam was at the side of Zipporah when they said to Moses Eldad and Medad are prophesying in the camp (Num 11:27). And when Zipporah heard this, she said, “woe to them, to the wives of these”.
Whatever time Moses would separate from the way of the world, would only be in the hour that the Holy One Blessed Be He spoke to Moses at Sinai before the giving of the Torah, sanctify the people and said to them, “for three days do not approach a woman” (Ex. 19:15) The people separated from their women and Moses separated from his wife. And after the giving of the Torah said Hashem to him, go say to them, go back to your tents, and you stand here with me (Deut. 5:30-31), and (they?) return to the way of the world.
And Zipporah said “woe to the wives of these, [if] they will be charged with prophecy, for they will separate from their wives like my husband separated from me”. And from here Miriam knew and told Aaron.
And if Miriam, who did not intend to speak of his disparagement, was punished in that way, how much more so one who speaks of the disparagement of his friend/neighbour and the evil tongue, a man [who does so] will be stricken with leprosy.
As you can see there are many parallels and pieces that are literally copied, and Im not convinced that this part represents the plain meaning. Granted, it is possible that its the plain meaning but more likely Miriam just spoke up because, to put it bluntly, she felt she was left out. To use Rashi’s words, she did speak of his disparagement and thats exactly the reason why she was stricken with leprosy.
It is one thing for the Midrash that does not claim to deliver the plain meaning, to fill in gaps or work with anomalies in the text and for a pshat commentary to deliver it as if it happened like that. But then again, one could raise the question whether its possible to draw such sharp distinctions between midrash and Scripture.
None of this though diminishes the greatness of Rashi, he is a great educator and I think he is more concerned with directing his audience to a love for Hashem, the Torah and the Jewish people than sticking to the plain meaning.
0 Responses to “Rashi and the plain meaning”