Vayechi: Rashbam

For this week’s portion I found a nice piece of commentary by the Rashbam.

The Rashbam, which is an acronym for Rabbi Shlomo ben Meir, was a grandson of the greatest of commentators; Rashi. He was born in 1085 and lived in France, more specifically Troyes. His commentary is mostly characterized by his focus on delivering the plain meaning and is from what I can see quite technical.

Rashi is of course also associated with the plain meaning but when studying Rashi its obvious that his commentary is highly influenced by the midrashim and in some cases even follows them verbatim.

In an interesting anecdote its related that the Rashbam confronted his grandfather with this and said that his commentary wasnt really only focused on the plain meaning. Rashi agreed with this but by then was too old to revise or write a new commentary. The Rashbam then took on this task and his commentary is the result.

One other thing I’d like to relate about the Rashbam is that he lived during the time of the First Crusade. In fact the city where his grandfather had gone for his studies, Worms, was raided by Christians and many (if not all) Jews were slaughtered. A crusade that was supposed to be undertaken to save the Christian brethren from the Muslims but started (as usual) with Christians killing Jews in their surroundings. So this is also the background at which the commentary has been written.

The piece I want to relate is on the blessing of Jacob on Judah in Gen 49:10

“The rod shall not depart from Judah nor a lawgiver from between his feet until Shiloh arrives and his will be an assemblage of nations.”

This is seen by many commentators as containing a reference to the Messiah but the Rashbam had different ideas.

But this time its not my own translation as while in the middle of translating this piece of commentary I chanced upon a website that had already translated it! the smiley is such because that ruined my translation exercise!

Still I think its a fascinating piece and as such present here the translation of the website:

לא יסור שבט מיהודה – המלכות הניתן לו להשתחוות לו כל אחיו לא תפסוק ממנו כל אותה הגדולה ולא מחוקק ושררה מזרעו עד כי יבוא יהודה שילה, כלומר: עד כי יבוא מלך יהודה, הוא רחבעם בן שלמה, שבא לחדש המלוכה בשילה, שזהו קרוב לשכם. אבל אז יסורו עשרת השבטים ממנו וימליכו את ירבעם ולא נשאר לרחבעם בן שלמה רק יהודה ובנימין

The scepter shall not depart from Yehudah - The kingship which was given to him, that all the other tribes would bow to him, all of this greatness will not cease from him, nor rulership and power from his line until Yehudah comes to Shilo; that is to say, until the arrival of the king of Yehudah, who was Rechavam the son of Solomon, who came to renew the kingdom in Shilo, which is near Shechem. But at that point, the ten tribes will depart from him and crown Yerovam, leaving only Judah and Benjamin with Rechavam the son of Solomon.

According to the Rashbam it has nothing to do with the Messiah, instead Shiloh in this verse refers to a location, the name of a place. Now as far as I know this is a minority view, in fact his grandfather disagrees with him and says:

Until Shiloh arrives – the king, Mashiach, for the kingship is his

But nevertheless an interesting view.

More of the Rashbatz

Rabbi Simeon ben Tzemach Duran (14th century, Spain), known by the acronym Rashbatz, on certain Christian claims.

And when they saw all of this they clung to their fraudulent ideas and claimed that the forefathers and the prophets and all of the greatest pious men were possessed by Satan as the result of the sin of Adam who was expelled from the Garden of Eden, and that they were descending to hell. Because [Adam's] …sin was attached to him and his children at the outset of human procreation they called it “original” … No single human being had the power to atone for this sin until God took on human form in the womb of a woman, and became both a God and a human, and then his blood was spilled and that blood atoned for the original sin … and our master Nahmanides already remarked regarding this in his disputation: “If one intends to lie, he ought to distance his witnesses,” for all of the curses that Adam and Eve and the serpent incurred because of that sin are still evident today. Thus they remain and were not atoned for.¹

¹From Keshet U-Magen as cited in Shalom Rosenberg, In the Footsteps of the Kuzari (New York: Yashar Books Inc, 2007), p. 152

Ibn Ezra on Gen 1:3

In Israel I bought a copy of Mikra’ot Gedolot on Bereishit. It is truly a masterpiece, it contains the commentaries of many of the Rishonim and is very useful when studying. All on one page are Rashi, Rasbam, Ramban, Sforno, Ibn Ezra etc and not to forget the Targumim, very nice indeed:)

Ive been trying to read some of Ibn Ezra as I know he is among the Pashtanim.

Here is an excerpt of his commentary on Gen 1:3, the translation is far from perfect but the commentary comes without vowels so it was quite difficult.

<ויאמר – אמר הגאון, כי פירוש ויאמר כמו “וירצה”. ואילו היה כן, היה ראוי “להיות אור”. רק הוא כמשמעו, וכן: “בדבר ה’ שמים נעשו”  (תהלים לג ו); “כי הוא צוה ונבראו” (שם קמח ה). והטעם, כינוי על המעשה שלא היה ביגיעה, ועל דרך משל מלך ומשרתיו. וזה האור היה למעלה מן הרוח.

And He said – The Gaon said, (כי פירוש)([in]that commentary) ”and He said” is like “and He wanted”. And if this was so, it was proper “seeing the light”. Only it listened/obeyed accordingly. And thus [it says], by the word of Hashem the heavens were made (Tehilim 33:6) Because He commanded and they were created (Tehilim 148:5). And the reason (כינוי על המעשה שלא היה ביגיעה) beauty on the works were not in toils. And by ways of a parable of a king and his servants; and this is the light that was ascending from the wind.The verses in blue show parts I think I messed up;)

 

 

As I said it was difficult to translate:P

I dont get the parable, does the light reflect the king and the wind his servants? The king indeed ascends from the people however I dont see how the light ascends from the wind…

Any idea?