Rashbam's Commentary on the Torah by Prof. Rabbi Marty Lockshin
We know very little about the life of one of the most interesting rabbis of the Middle Ages, Rabbi Samuel (Shmu’el) son of (ben) Meir (Rashbam) of Northern France. He probably lived from 1080 to 1160, but the dates are uncertain. We do know that he was the oldest son of Rabbi Meir of Ramerupt and his wife, Yokheved, the daughter of Rashi (1040-1105), the most famous medieval rabbi of Christian Europe.
Rashbam studied with his grandfather and reports in his writings on their conversations. Rashi took his young grandson seriously, quoting insights in his name. In Rashi’s last years, he depended for many things on young Rabbi Samuel, who also took over for a while as the head of Rashi’s yeshivah after Rashi died.
Both Rashi and Rashbam wrote Bible commentaries, but for both it was a secondary pursuit. Almost all of Rashi’s Bible commentaries survived; Rashbam’s commentary on the Torah, or around eighty percent of it, survived. We also have commentaries on Job, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes and Psalms attributed to Rashbam, but scholars debate these attributions. For both Rashi and Rashbam, the study of the Talmud and halakhah was their primary pursuit.
It would be hard to pinpoint a significant difference between their approaches to Talmudic studies, with the exception of the complaint made by Rashbam’s younger brother, Jacob (known as Rabbenu Tam), that Rashbam used to emend the text of the Talmud “twenty times as often” as their grandfather did and that he used to write his emendations in the text of the Talmud itself, not in the margins, as Rashi had.
Rashbam was a serious, devout Jew, who never proposed reforms in Jewish religious life. If anything, Rashbam might be called a strict constructionist in his approach to halakhic texts. Among the Tosafists, the school of Talmudic analysis that he helped found, Rashbam’s rulings stuck most closely to what was written in the Talmud.
But his Torah commentary was different. In fact, it was so different from what most pre-modern Jews were looking for that it was often ignored and over the centuries was almost lost. While hundreds of medieval manuscripts of Rashi’s Torah commentary have survived, only one almost complete manuscript of Rashbam’s commentary survived into the twentieth century, and it sadly was lost during the Shoah. Before the manuscript was lost, the German Jewish scholar David Rosin published (in 1880) the best known edition of the commentary.
Rashi is famous for his declaration that his commentary would be dedicated to peshat (or “peshuto shel miqra,” as Rashi called it), the plain or contextual meaning of the biblical text. This declaration has puzzled readers over the centuries, since the commentary is actually very dependent on midrash. But Rashi’s grandson, Rashbam, who claimed to be continuing the work that Rashi began, wrote the medieval Jewish Bible commentary that comes closest to total dedication to peshat.
Rashbam was not a 21st century academic. But many aspects of his Torah commentary seem similar to what we find in works of modern biblical scholarship:
- sensitivity to literary patterns, such as chiasm[1] (e.g. commentary to Exodus 2:6);
- sensitivity to the differences between biblical and rabbinic Hebrew (e.g. commentary to Exodus 12:7 or Genesis 45:24);
- searching for and identifying the most accurate texts of the Torah (e.g. commentary to Exodus 23:24 and Deut 18:11);
- having a historical consciousness that the Torah was better understood by the people who were alive when it was given than by us today, since the Torah assumes knowledge of various things that we no longer know (e.g. commentary to Genesis 36:24);
- understanding that the Torah has “reader awareness,” anticipating difficulties that a reader might have and trying to provide information to deal with those difficulties (e.g. commentary to Gen 1:1, discussing Gen 35:22);
- being willing to offer prosaic explanation of biblical texts even when more colorful or didactic ones are available and well-known (e.g. commentary to Exod 2:3); and
- being willing to entertain the possibility that some verses of the Torah were added after the death of Moses (e.g. accurate texts[2] of Rashbam’s commentary to Num 22:1).[3]
(א) יבינו המשכילים כי כל דברי רבותינו ודרשותיהם כנים ואמתים. וזהו האמור במסכת שבת (דף ס"ג ע"א): הוינא בר תמני סרי שנין, ולא ידענא דאין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו. ועיקר ההלכות והדרשות יוצאין מייתור המקראות או משינוי הלשון, שנכתב פשוטו של מקרא בלשון שיכולין ללמוד הימנו עיקר הדרשה, כמו "אֵלֶּה תוֹלְדוֹת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְהָאָרֶץ בְּהִבָּרְאָם", ודרשו חכמים: "באברהם", מאריכות הלשון, שלא היה צריך לכתוב "בְּהִבָּרְאָם".
עתה אפרש פירושי הראשונים בפסוק זה, להודיע לבני אדם למה לא ראיתי לפרש כמותם. יש מפרשים: בראשונה ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ. אי אפשר לומר כן, שהרי המים קדמו, כדכתיב: "וְרוּחַ אֱלֹהִים מְרַחֶפֶת עַל פְּנֵי הַמָּיִם" (פסוק ב). ועוד, שאין כתוב כאן "בראשונה", אלא "בְּרֵאשִׁית"; דבוק הוא, כמו "וַתְּהִי רֵאשִׁית מַמְלַכְתּוֹ בָּבֶל" (בראשית י י).
והמפרש כמו "תְּחִלַּת דִּבֶּר ה' בְּהוֹשֵׁעַ" (הושע א ב), כלומר: בתחלת ברוא אלהים את השמים, כלומר: בטרם ברא שמים וארץ – הָאָרֶץ הָיְתָה תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ וְחֹשֶׁךְ עַל פְּנֵי תְהוֹם וְרוּחַ אֱלֹהִים מְרַחֶפֶת עַל פְּנֵי הַמָּיִם, נמצא שהמים נבראו תחלה, גם זה הבל, שכן לא היה לו לכתוב "וְהָאָרֶץ הָיְתָה תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ", שמאחר שעדיין לא נבראת – לא היה לו לקרותה ארץ קודם יצירת המים, מאחר שהמים קדמו.
אך זה הוא עיקר פשוטו לפי דרך המקראות, שרגיל להקדים ולפרש דבר שאין צריך בשביל דבר הנזכר לפניו במקום אחר, כדכתיב: "שֵׁם וְחָם וָיָפֶת" (בראשית ט יח), וכתיב: "וְחָם הוּא אֲבִי כְנָעַן" (שם). אלא מפני שכתוב לפניו "אָרוּר כְּנָעַן", ואילו לא פורש תחילה מי כנען, לא היינו יודעין למה קללו נח.
"וַיִּשְׁכַּב אֶת בִּלְהָה פִּילֶגֶשׁ אָבִיו וַיִּשְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל" (בראשית לה כב). למה נכתב כאן "וַיִּשְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל"? והלא לא נכתב כאן שדיבר יעקב מאומה על ראובן! אלא לפי שבשעת פטירתו אמר: "פַּחַז כַּמַּיִם אַל תּוֹתַר כִּי עָלִיתָ מִשְׁכְּבֵי אָבִיךָ אָז חִלַּלְתָּ יְצוּעִי עָלָה" (בראשית מט ד), לפיכך הקדים "וַיִּשְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל", שלא תתמה בראותך שהוכיחו על כך בסוף ימיו. וכן בכמה מקומות.
גם כל הפרשה הזאת של מלאכת ששה ימים, הקדימה משה רבינו לפרש לך מה שאמר הקב"ה בשעת מתן תורה: "זָכוֹר אֶת-יוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת לְקַדְּשׁוֹ... כִּי שֵׁשֶׁת יָמִים עָשָׂה ה' אֶת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֶת הָאָרֶץ אֶת הַיָּם וְאֶת כָּל אֲשֶׁר בָּם וַיָּנַח בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי" (שמות כ, ז-י). וזהו שכתוב: "וַיְהִי בֹקֶר יוֹם הַשִּׁשִּׁי" (פסוק לא), אותו שישי שהוא גמר שישה ימים שאמר הקב"ה במתן תורה.
לכך אמר להם משה לישראל, להודיעם כי דבר הקב"ה אמת: וכי אתם סבורים שהעולם הזה כל הימים בנוי כמו שאתם רואים אותו עכשיו מלא כל טוב? לא היה כן, אלא "בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים" וגו', כלומר: בתחילת בריאת שמים וארץ, כלומר: בעת שנבראו כבר שמים העליונים והארץ, הן זמן מרובה הן זמן מועט, אז "וְהָאָרֶץ הָיְתָה" [וכו'] (פסוק ב).
[A] Those who are enlightened will understand that all the words of our Rabbis and their interpretations are correct and true. And this is what is said in Tractate Shabbat (63a), "I was 18 years old, and I did not know that a biblical verse never departs from its plain sense." For the most part, the laws and interpretations derive from [what appear to be] extra or unusual features of biblical language, since the plain sense of a biblical verse is written in language from which one can derive the essential part of the interpretation. For example, "This is the story of heaven and earth when they were created [בהבראם]" (Gen 2:4), and the Sages interpreted this as "for Abraham" [באברהם] from the longer form of the expression, since there was no need to write, "when they were created."
[B] Now I will explain the explanations of the earlier scholars on this verse so as to make clear to people why I did not see fit to explain it as they did. Some interpret [Genesis 1:1 to be] "First God created the heavens and the earth." This cannot be right because of the fact that the water preceded, as it is written, "A wind from God sweeping over the surface of the water" (1:2). Moreover, in this verse it is not written "First," but rather "In the beginning of" [bereishit], in construct state, as in, "The beginning of [reishit] his kingdom was Babylon...." (10:10).
And the one who interprets it to be similar to, "The beginning of the Lord's speaking to Hosea" (Hosea 1:2), in other words, "At the beginning of God's creating the heavens," that is to say [he understands it to mean]: Before he created heaven and earth--the earth being formless and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind from God sweeping over the surface of the water--[on this reading] it turns out that the water was created first. This is also nonsense since in that case he should not have written, "the earth was formless and void" because--given that it had not yet been created--he should not have called it "earth" prior to the formation of water, since the water came first.
[C] But the following is the primary plain sense found in the biblical verses. For it is common [in the Torah] to explain something which is unnecessary [right now] in anticipation of something that is mentioned later on in another place. As it is written, "Shem, Ham, and Yefet" (9:18), and it is written "And Ham is the father of Canaan" (ibid.) [even though there's no reason to mention Canaan there]. But this is because it is written later [in the story of Noah], "Cursed be Canaan," and if it had not explained who Canaan is, we would not have known why Noah cursed him [when Ham is the one who did something wrong]....
So too this whole section concerning the work of the six days [of creation], Moses our master explained it to you [here] in anticipation of what the Holy One, who is blessed, said [later] at the time of the Giving of the Torah: "Remember the Sabbath day to make it holy...for in six days the Lord made the heaven and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and he rested on the seventh day" (Exod 20:7-10). And this corresponds to what is written, "And it was morning, the sixth day" (Gen 1:31)--i.e., that "sixth" which was the conclusion of the six days [of work] that the Holy One, who is blessed, mentioned at the Giving of the Torah.
[D] For this reason Moses told Israel [the story of creation], to let them know them that the word of the Holy One, who is blessed, is true. For if you imagine that this world has always been made just as you see it now, full of all good things--this was not the case, rather: "In the beginning of God's creating...." In other words, at the beginning of the creation of the heaven and the earth, that is to say, at the time when the upper heavens and the earth had already been created--whether a long time or a short time [prior]--then [at some time afterward], "And the earth was [unformed and void...]" (2:1).
"And the earth"--the one already made.
"Was formless and void"--in that there was nothing in them, as it is written in Jeremiah: “I looked at the earth and, behold, it was formless and void; and toward the heavens, and they had no light" (4:23). "I looked and, behold, there was no human being" (4:25). "From birds of heaven to beasts, they have wandered away” (9:9). This is the meaning of "formless and void"--destroyed, without inhabitants.
“And darkness was upon the surface of the water”--this is explained by [Jeremiah's words] "And [I looked] toward the heavens, and they had no light."
“And wind blowing over the surface of the water”--the wind was necessary for what he wrote later, "And God said, 'Let the water under the heavens be gathered together into one place'...." (1:9). For the waters were gathered together by means of the wind, just like the splitting of the Red Sea, since the dry land became visible by means of “And God drove back the sea with a powerful east wind all night long, turning the sea into dry ground, and the water split” (Exod 14:21).
(א) ויקרא אלהים לאור יום - תמה על עצמך לפי הפשט, למה הוצרך הקב"ה לקרוא לאור בשעת יצירתו 'יום'?! אלא כך כתב משה רבנו: כל מקום שאנו רואים בדברי המקום יום ולילה, כגון 'יום ולילה לא ישבותו' - הוא האור והחשך שנברא ביום ראשון, קורא אותו הקב"ה בכל מקום 'יום ולילה'. וכן כל: 'ויקרא אלהים' הכתובים בפרשה זו. וכן: 'ויקרא משה להושע בן נון יהושע', האמור למעלה. למטה אפרים הושע בן נון', הוא אותו שקרא משה יהושע בן נון, שמינהו קודם לכן משרתו בביתו, שכן דרך המלכים הממנים אנשים על ביתם לחדש להם שם, כמו שנאמר 'ויקרא פרעה שם יוסף צפנת פענח'.'ויקרא לדניאל בלטשצר' וגו'.... (ב) ולחושך קרא לילה - לעולם אור תחילה, ואח"כ חשך. (ג) ויהי ערב ויהי בקר - אין כתיב כאן ויהי לילה ויהי יום, אלא ויהי ערב, שהעריב יום ראשון ושיקע האור, ויהי בוקר, בוקרו של לילה, שעלה עמוד השחר, הרי הושלם יום א' מן השישה ימים שאמר הקב"ה בעשרת הדברות, ואח"כ התחיל יום שני, ויאמר אלהים יהי רקיע. ולא בא הכתוב לומר שהערב והבקר יום אחד הם, כי לא הוצרכנו לפרש אלא היאך היו ששה ימים, שהבקיר יום ונגמרה הלילה, הרי נגמר יום אחד והתחיל יום שני.
"And God named the light 'day' "--according to the plain sense, you must ask yourself why God would need to name the light 'day' at the time of its creation? Rather, this is what Moshe our master meant: wherever we see in the words of the Present One [the terms] "day" and "night," for instance [at the end of the Flood story], “Day and night shall not cease” (Genesis 8:22), that is [referring to] the light and darkness created on the first day; the Holy One, who is blessed, everywhere calls them "day" and "night." And so too every "And God named" that is written in this section [is for the same type of purpose]. And so too, "And Moses named Hosea, son of Nun, 'Joshua' " (Numbers 13:15) [with reference to] what was stated earlier, “For the tribe of Ephraim: Hosea, son of Nun” (Numbers 13:8)--he’s the same one whom Moses called "Joshua, son of Nun," whom he appointed before this point as an attendant in his household....
"And the darkness He named 'night' "-- Light is always first, and afterwards darkness.
"And it was evening and it was morning"--it is not written here, "And it was night and it was day," but rather, "And it was evening"--for the first day grew dark and the light receded--"and it was morning"--i.e., the conclusion of the night, for dawn had arisen, and thus the first day out of the six days which the Holy One, who is blessed, mentioned in the Ten Commandments was completed. And following this the second day began [with the words], "And God said, let there be an expanse" (1:6).
But the text did not intend to state that the evening and the morning [together] constitute one day, for we are not required to explain anything beyond [showing] how there were six days--that a [new] day arrived, and the [previous] night came to a close--thus day one ended and the second day began.
(א) ויאמר - למלאכיו. (ב) נעשה אדם - כמו שמצינו במיכיהו בן ימלא במלכים, ובישעיה: את מי אשלח ומי ילך לנו, וגם באיוב.
"And God said"--to his angels.
"Let us make a human"--as we find [God addressing angels] in the case of Michayahu, son of Yimla, in the book of Kings, and in Isaiah [where God asks the angels]: "Who shall I send, and who will go for us?" as well as in the book of Job.
(א) בצלמו - של אדם הוא. בצלם אלהים - מלאכים. ואל תתמה אם לא נתפרש יצירת המלאכים, כי לא כתב משה כאן לא מלאכים ולא גיהינום ולא מעשה מרכבה, אלא דברים שאנו רואים בעולם הנזכרים בעשרת הדברות כי לכך נאמר כל מעשה ששת הימים כמו שפירשתי למעלה.
"In his image"--it is referring to the human's [own image].
"In the image of God"--angels. And do not be surprised [at this interpretation] given the fact that the creation of angels was not explicitly stated, for Moshe did not write here concerning angels, or hell, or the divine chariot [envisioned by Ezekiel], but only things we see in the world that are mentioned in the Ten Commandments, since for this reason the entire account of the six days [of creation] is stated, as I explained earlier.
Conclusion of Rashbam's Bio (from above)
....But perhaps the most striking innovation in Rashbam’s Torah commentary was that he frequently explained the text in a manner that differed from and even contradicted halakhah.[4] For example, classical rabbinic literature says that the meaning of Lev 21:1-4 is that a kohen (priest) is permitted and even required to attend his wife’s funeral.
In his commentary there, Rashbam says that, on the peshat level of meaning, a kohen is forbidden to attend his attend his wife’s funeral. In another example from the priesthood, halakhah says that a high priest is allowed to marry any Jewish-born virgin. Rashbam points out that, according to the peshat (of Lev 21:14), the high priest can only marry the virgin daughter of another priest.
Perhaps the most famous of Rashbam’s unorthodox readings of Torah texts is his explanation of the verse, “there was evening, and there was morning, one day.” Halakhists both before and since Rashbam say (and surely Rashbam was taught as a child) that this verse teaches us that a Jewish day begins and ends in the evening. Rashbam writes, though, that the real peshat here is that a day of creation begins and ends in the morning. In other words, the opening verses of Genesis teach that God created light; subsequently evening fell and then dawn broke and then at that point (at dawn, not at sunset), the first day was finished. Rashbam surely believed that a Jewish day begins in the evening and he said so unequivocally at other places in his commentary. But he did not accept that the peshat of Gen 1:5 says that.
Rashbam’s important interpretive model for us is that it is permissible and worthwhile to seek out the peshat meaning of biblical texts even when those meanings contradict Jewish traditional teachings and halakhah. Rashbam felt that Jewish law and tradition were based on a free-standing level of interpretation, midrash, that can be and often is irreconcilable with what the peshat of the text says. He makes it very clear that the halakhic/midrashic way of understanding the Torah is the most important one.
Rashbam did not live a Judaism of peshat and would have roundly rejected the suggestion that peshat has significance for religious behavior. And yet Rashbam, the brilliant Talmudist, who dabbled in the Bible as a sideline, realized that the peshat level of meaning of the Torah has significance for us as religious Jews, even when it teaches something incompatible with halakhah, and he made peshat the theme of his Torah commentary.