Rashi is the most beloved biblical interpreter in the history of Judaism. The reissue of an English translation of his Torah commentary provides an opportunity to reflect on his legacy in biblical interpretation and to think about some hard issues that he first noted and that still trouble us today.1 Though Rashi lived nearly a thousand years ago, we’re still working on the problem of how to understand the “plain sense” of Scripture.
The name Rashi is an acronym for Rabbi Shlomo Yitzhaqi, a French Jew who lived from 1040 to 1105 C.E. Rashi made his living by raising grapes and making wine—a fine trade for a Frenchman. More important than his wine, however, were his commentaries (in Hebrew) on almost every book of the Hebrew Bible and on the Babylonian Talmud. Rashi’s work became the basis for Jewish education and stimulated the writing of numerous commentaries on his commentaries. Even in traditional Jewish education today, Rashi is the chief path to knowledge of the Bible and Talmud.
Christian scholars also used Rashi’s Bible commentaries. Nicholas of Lyra (c. 1270–1340), whose book of notes on the Old Testament was standard curriculum in the late Middle Ages and Renaissance, refers to Rashi’s interpretations on nearly every page. “Rabbi Solomon” (as Nicholas calls Rashi) is the one “who among the Hebrew doctors has spoken most reasonably.”2 Martin Luther’s translations and interpretations of the Bible relied heavily on Lyra’s work; a popular saying (playing on Lyra/lyre) opined that “If Lyra had not played, Luther could not have danced.” So Rashi’s influence extended not only to Jewish biblical interpretation but to Christian—both Catholic and Protestant.
What was it about Rashi’s biblical interpretation that was so special? He was the first to engage consistently with the “plain sense” of Scripture. Others had pointed to the importance of the “plain sense” but had not thoroughly integrated this perception into their exegetical work. Traditionally Jews had interpreted the Bible by the method of midrash (literally, “inquiry”), which regarded the meaning of each passage as potentially infinite and not necessarily connected with its immediate context. In midrashic interpretation the “hidden” meaning of any passage might not be unlocked until connected with another passage elsewhere in the Bible, their mysterious “intersection” producing deeper meanings.3 Rashi called a halt to such proliferation of “hidden” meanings and resolved to attend to the “plain sense” of Scripture. Rashi is not averse to midrashic interpretation, but preserves it only where it does justice to the plain sense of Scripture.
What is the plain sense of Scripture? How do we—or Rashi—discern the plain sense? This is the issue that still challenges us today. Many modern interpreters (particularly the “postmodernists”) claim that there is no plain sense, that any textual understanding is essentially a misreading, an imposition of meanings and ideologies on an opaque text. In this view there is no difference between the plain sense and the midrashic sense of a text—both are willful impositions by a reader.
Rashi would certainly disagree. Many times Rashi remarks, “There are many midrashic explanations, but they do not fit the plain sense” (so at Genesis 3:22 and 3:24, et al.). A good example of the difference between the midrashic approach and Rashi’s method is shown by their different “takes” on Genesis 3:8, “And they heard the sound of God Yahweh walking in the garden.” A midrash (Genesis Rabbah 19.8) comments:
Rabbi Berekhiah said, “Instead of ‘they heard’ (wayyishme’u), read ‘they caused to hear’ (wayyashmi’u). They heard the sound of the trees saying, ‘Behold the thief who stole knowledge from his creator.’” Rabbi Hanana bar Pappa said, “Instead of ‘they heard,’ read ‘they caused to hear.’ They heard the sound of the ministering angels saying, ‘God is going to the ones in the garden!’” As for Rabbi Levi and Rabbi Isaac, Rabbi Levi said [that the angels said], “The one in the garden has died.” Rabbi Isaac said [that the angels said], “He is taking a walk!”
Rashi, however, comments, “What did they hear? They heard the sound of God as he was walking in the garden.”
The midrashic interpretations, in reading the plural verb “they heard” as “they caused to hear,” avoid describing God as having a body and walking about and making noise in the garden. The question in this reading then becomes, Who are “they”? Two interpretations are offered: “They” are either trees or angels, which are depicted as a kind of chorus, commenting on the events in progress. In contrast to the midrashic reluctance to portray God as having a body, Rashi accepts the implications of the plain sense, even 047though it runs counter to the traditional Jewish concept of God as transcendent and disembodied. Such are the risks when facing the plain sense of the text.
Rashi maintains consistently that there is such a thing as the plain sense of Scripture, and that it is possible to tell when an explanation doesn’t “fit.” We may be reminded of the Supreme Court justice’s comment in a pornography case: “I can’t define pornography, but I know it when I see it.” Similarly, it may be that the plain sense of Scripture can’t be defined, that it may in fact change with a culture’s historical standards, but that nonetheless one can recognize it with effort and good sense. Attention to the “plain sense” of Scripture isn’t easy and may on occasion be disturbing, but we cannot ignore it. We may be grateful to Rashi for pointing this out with grace and intelligence.
The new edition features an interlinear translation, with the Hebrew text set in standard Hebrew type (as opposed to traditional editions of Rashi, which use so-called Rashi script). It will be a boon to students and scholars alike, all of whom can learn from Rashi.
Rashi is the most beloved biblical interpreter in the history of Judaism. The reissue of an English translation of his Torah commentary provides an opportunity to reflect on his legacy in biblical interpretation and to think about some hard issues that he first noted and that still trouble us today.1 Though Rashi lived nearly a thousand years ago, we’re still working on the problem of how to understand the “plain sense” of Scripture. The name Rashi is an acronym for Rabbi Shlomo Yitzhaqi, a French Jew who lived from 1040 to 1105 C.E. Rashi made his living by raising […]
You have already read your free article for this month. Please join the BAS Library or become an All Access member of BAS to gain full access to this article and so much more.
