Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 19, scan section 20

literature of Israel. By his commentaries he has introduced common sense into the study of the vastest and profoundest subjects. The study of the tracts lacking his commentary, although many different other men have attempted to supply the deficiency, gives us many pains and much trouble, till we come to understand the real meaning. As what Rashi eluci- dates in a few words, or sometimes even by one word added to the text before us, has to be commented upon by others in many laborious lines to make the student imderstand the simple meaning of the Talmud. The life of Rashi has been written by many scholars, who have discussed at length his commentaries, legal decisions, and ritual poetry. The latest, A. H. Weiss, in the periodical "Beth Talmud " and in separate pamphlets. We think it therefore 54 THE HISTORY OF THE TALMUD. superfluous to repeat them, as this is not our task here. We have to remark, however, on several points relating to the Talmud here, on which those scholars have left something for us to add : An examination of Rashi's commentaries on the Talmud, on the Bible, and legal decisions in his " Hapardes," and so also his ritual poems, will show that they differ in their nature totally. In his commentary on the Talmud, which general criticism places above his other writings, we see that he is very cautious to decide any Halakha, and to draw from the statements of the Talmud definite conclusions as to a law or custom. We do not remember in his whole commentary on the Talmud, any place where he should decide "that such a Halakha prevails," or even, "so was the custom in his days," as we find on many occasions in the commentaries of his disciples "Tosphath, " and we have long ago shown in our work about Phylacteries (p. 24), that he has interpreted an obscure passage in the Talmud in contradiction to the cus- tom and Halakha accepted among the Gaonim, because, ac- cording to his method, it is the plain meaning of the passage (see there, p. 30). Everyw^here he bewares of dialectics, and of contradictions between some passages of the Talmud and others, but he explained the subject of the passage according to its simple meaning in its own place. In case of Agadoth he also was careful to give only an explanation of the words, literally without any remark or opinion of his own, even hinted. This is his custom in his whole commentary on the Talmud. Where he foimd the text corrupted, he corrected it according to his opinion, and in accordance to his profound knowledge of the Talmud, of its style and language ; and, if necessary, removed the old version, not fearing additions or eliminations, provided the real meaning of the Talmud he comprehended, without resorting to forced and far-fetched reasoning. His commentary on the Bible, however, is different, as mostly he construes according to the Halakha ; i.e., as the sages had explained the biblical passages in the Talmud and Mid- rashim, without regard to the fact that the literal meaning of the biblical texts often does not bear out these constructions. Often he was not averse to interpret the text according to the Talmudic interpretation, even when its meaning is mani- festly contrary thereto by all the rules of language. His RASHI OR ISAACIDES. 55 object in this is unknown to us, and it can only be conjectured that he did not Hke that his commentary should be at variance with the Talmudic interpretations and conclusions, which cor- rectness and justice he forces himself in his commentary on the Talmud to make manifest. Not so in his decisions; he endeavors always to interpret the laws leniently (mildly), and is averse to rigor. There he also avoids dialectics, tries not to attain his object by strange and eccentric reasonings, but is only intent on finding the real deep meaning of the law, and to interpret it as mildly as it is in his power. It is true, that most of his decisions are written by his disciples, and we cannot find there that clearness of language and wonderful felicity of expression which he displays in his two above-mentioned commentaries. The Replies of the Gaonim and their works served to him also as a guide, but he did not tread in their footsteps blindfold, but he sifted their statements and construed them ingeniously into accordance with his own opinion ; this we witness in his book Pardes,* which has been accepted as a great authority for all Poskim deciders of the law subsequent to him. We do not possess his commentary on all the tracts of the Talmud, for of three tracts we know with certitude that the commentaries are not his; and in the case of other tracts, criticism is doubtful whether they are from his pen. And it may be that they got lost in the course of time, either because he did not compose his comments on the Talmud in the natural order, but in the order in which they were studied in the great college at the head of which he was, and whither pupils flocked from all places of the earth, after the decease of the celebrated scholars of Lorraine; or perhaps he left this world before he had completed his commentary on the whole Talmud, as he did not complete the commentary on the Bible, for those on the books of Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah, and a part of the commentary on the books of Ezekiel and Job have not issued from his pen, though they bear no name, for they are easily distinguishable from his version in their style and by their nature. What Rashi had done to the Talmud, his disciples have * It was also reprinted by "as at Warsau, 1870, with our preface and a few notes. 56 THE HISTORY OF THE TALMUD. done to his commentary, which they have surrounded by com- ments and remarks on the margins, sometimes to make plainer his meaning, and sometimes they also made additions to amplify his statements by Agadas and Halakhas, and in the course of time they crept into his own commentary and were interpolated into the words of Rashi, but to separate them from his own words it is very difficult, even for the lancet of sharp criticism. Modem criticism has rightly thought that Rashi (Isaacides) began his labor of the commentary on the Talmud, which was composed gradually, by the lectures which he delivered to the students. After this he turned to the Midrash, and from it passed to the books of Scripture. And as soon as his com- mentary was heard among the living, an echo sounded in the camp of Israel that if not Isaacides who laid his hand upon it to investigate and to commentate it, it would remain almost neglected as its brother, the Palestinian Talmud. No wonder, therefore, that after a short time, some fifty commentaries on the commentary of Rashi sprung up, which examine nicely every word and syllable that has proceeded from him ; and the last, Kabbalist, R. Samson, of Astropol, was not incorrect when he