Clarity and Coherence

By: Jonathan Seidel

A tale of two giants: Rabbenu Chananel and Rashi: a purview of Steinsaltz Hebrew versus Steinsaltz English—translation v definition and clarification v elaboration 

Rashi is the most famous and popular commentator on the Talmud. He is looked to for explanation and simplification. While Rif is seen as the first to usurp the Talmudic structure, Rashi is truly the first to usurp the text. Rif’s halakhot while cutting out the non-legally relevant discussion does maintain the overall picture of the Talmud as well as a few clarifiers. If it is in the pursuit of the law, Rif will place the text with some extra words to embolden the sequence. Rashi on the other hand draws extensions. These extensions maintain the structure of the Talmud but obliterate the methodology of it. Rashi keeps the words but alters the mechanics. He doesn’t add in words but rather explores the meaning behind the terms mentioned. He is the dictionary behind the text. His gloss follows a line by line format but it fervently adds variables to the narrative. 

He deduces the overall discussion boiling it down by phrase. Rashi’s goal is to explain the unexplainable. The text is complex unless each line has a translation. In a way Rashi works backwards. Looking at the entire discussion he then jots down the relevant factors as they fit into the puzzle. His version sees the pieces already formed. They are already enmeshed with character. Now they must fit like a symphony. The discussion is a well crafted instruction manual. At each level, more explanation is necessary for clarity. Phrases are mere excerpts of the expounded discussion. Each line is figured into the totality of the sugya. Accordingly not everything needs explanation. Only that which is confusing. Rashi toils to elucidate in a brief rant. Referring to the obscurity with simplification. The puzzle piece must be polished in order for it to fit into the overall sequential discussion.

While Rashi finds explanation his priority, R Chananel prefers notation. Like Rashi, R Chananel provides a line by line orientation. While less frequent the type is revealing. Returning to Rif, R Chananel is the precursor. The intention and grammatical arrangement clarifies the obscure or the important. While R Chananel stuck to potentially confusing passages or wishing to highlight critical ones, Rif concentrated on halakhic discussions. Overlapping but not the same. R Chananel adds a few words to the Talmud as if adding missing words. He fills in the blanks. The sentence is unclear here is some clarity. Instead of forcing the reader to read an explanation, he merely places the pronouns of identification between them to maximize clarity. The goal is not to elaborate but to translate. To explain not explore. The text needs only a few extra words for coherence. It doesn’t need a definition. 

R Chananel perceives the text as a poem without proper syntax. The text tells the tale but the protagonist or action is not always clear. The confusion is resolved with a few notes here and there. This model further unifies the text. What matters is the sentence at hand. What does it mean and who is being described. The overall discussion is less relevant while the previous sentence and the present sentence are of focus. It is no difficult accusation. The text is read straightforward. Anything that is unclear is clarified. The pitfalls in proper syntax are fixed to read a coherent narrative. The text itself is clear except in specific cases. All that is necessary is to fill in the grammatical issues. Whether it is a pronoun or a comma. The structure is fluid with no need to complicate. What is perplexing will be elucidated. The difficulties in the sentence fragments will be acknowledged.

Rashi seeks to define while RC wishes to translate. Rashi takes the reader off page for a quick summary or explanation of the verse. Confused? Well here’s a short explanation on the side. RC takes the reader off page for the full sentence. Confused? He’s how to properly read the line. Rashi is more expansive and incisive while RC merely focuses on the topic. Rashi adds more than the line asks to ensure the reader is still following. If the discussion has grown a little two complicated, he reorganizes for fluid understanding. Here is a reordering for comprehension. RC only adds to what the term means. It need only be clarified in its full coherence. It isn’t the complexity of the discussion but the confusion of the actors. These variables are confirmed to ensure fluid reading. A difference in methodology yet aligned in teleology. Both are complicit in comprehension. It is not so much the results but message that is pertinent. 

The reason for the discrepancy is due to the intended audience. Both have similar goals but orient their commentaries differently. For Rashi, his audience was absent from the Talmudic language and thus needed a more detailed explanation for the case at hand while RC’s audience was versed in the lingo and merely needed some pointers to complete the sentences. In cases with an obscure word Rashi will write in the old French while RC will write in the Aramaic if even changing the term. Rashi’s audience was bereft of comprehension and thus needed paragraphs while RC’s audience was a generation removed and thus needed paraphrasing. This doesn’t mean that RC is more correct since he is closer to the Talmud nor that his translations are recorded adequately. Yet given RC’s linguistic and historical connection to the Talmudic compilers, it ought to receive more credence. It is unfortunate that much of RC’s notes have been lost nevertheless his position should be allotted incredible fealty alongside Rashi. 

Yet it is evident why Rashi is chosen. Beyond Rashi’s centrality in the rabbinic canon and his surviving records have been much better preserved and commented upon. The same parallel can be said of Plato and Heraclitus or even further north Aximander. The succession of philosophy begins with Plato to Aristotle just as Talmudism began with Rashi to Tosfot. Just as philosophy always marked back to Plato so is talmudism always marked back to Rashi even if both Tosfot and Aristotle were more popular and more criticized. Plato’s dialogues and Rashi’s commentary was unique as was Heraclitus’s fragments and RC’s commentary. RC was merely out of the loop as a geonic scholar whose work was lost to history in many regards and for what remained was incomplete. Yet even if it was complete it spoke an entirely different lingo. It wasn’t familiar nor simple to comprehend. It was based on a culture that conceded to the odd messaging. There was an identifier with the Aramaic. It is akin to Onkles. Merely a small indication for the more confusing aspects but yet straightforward to all who were there.  

Yet this was not the case for Rashi nor his French audience. Rashi’s commentary was influential as it explained in detail sentences that did not make sense to the non-professional Aramaic speaker. Without knowledge of the correct language there would be little ease in understanding the Talmud let alone some of RC’s clarifications. Rashi’s contextual program written in his Hebrew script was to be universalised. In a sense any learned Jew could study whether he spoke French or German (except for the obscure words he wrote in old French). The goal was to explain the discussion at length for an understanding instead of merely pointing out the obvious. Rashi employed linguistic logic. Instead of relying on potentially flawed readings, he illuminated the discussion by summarising the content for precise elucidation. Rashi’s commentary isn’t only canonical but conceivable. It is comprehensible since its methodology is universal. 

Rashi’s commentary is built on detailed logic. While not dialectical like Tosfot, his logical conclusions are representative of a foreign identification and understanding. Rashi is easy to read since his language is more a method than a translation. He deduces the case and figures what the detailed ridden text means. Even though the text seems bland and foreign, Rashi analyses the breath of detail on the side of the page. Keeping the reader on his toes and focused on his efforts. A difficult yet heartwarming joy comprehending the stifling legality. Rashi’s version as opposed to Tosfot does not rely on harmonisation across tractates just along the relative Talmudic discussion. Each tractate is broken down into several discussions and while connected liturgically, Rashi assumes their complementary nature by adducing their profound symmetry. 

This thought process is incredibly novel but is built on a foreigner’s relation to the text. How to identify if the language is incomprehensible? How to simulate an honest relationship with a head scratching adversary? Rashi uses his intelligence to mark the plausible explanations. If every piece is but a bit of the whole then with a few tweaks it is conceivable. It is an extended elaboration for the “slow” reader. One is reading a text that cannot only be understood with a few more simplifying sentences. RC doesn’t have this issue because the language was at least professional. When the text was read, the translation was evident. There was little to disagree. While it is possible to mistranslate, they merely read the sentence with all its qualifications. Logic wasn’t needed since they were fluent in its syntax and semantics. Each sentence carried obvious weight. Interpretations that were included in the reading. Yet it is clear that by RC’s time it wasn’t as simple as some signifiers were necessary for proper understanding.   

RC didn’t use logic because it was inferior and more so infeasible to the North African reader. The language wasn’t cryptic, it was merely different. Neither Rif nor RC spoke Aramaic (even R Hai Gaon again despite living in Babylon). They all spoke Arabic. Under Islamic rule the language shifted from Aramaic to Arabic. While both beginning with “ara” they aren’t the same nor even as similar as Hebrew and Aramaic. Yet given the Semitic connection as well as other grammatical associations, there was an affinity between the two. This doesn’t mean that Yiddish speakers have an easier way of reading modern Hebrew but it does mean that because the phonology is graced symmetrically there is where to find comfortability. Given the change in language and demographic, the insertions by RC and Rif later on in his own way modified and adapted to the foreign shift in language. There was little need for logic just yet. All that was necessary was a few clarifications for grammatical fluidity. Something obscure would lend to a brief explanation before continuing on.  

Rashi and RC experienced different realities and proscribed to different audiences. Rashi’s method was helpful to him as a logician against his own near complete ignorance to Semitic languages while RC stuck to the linguistic model given his close ties to the basic understanding of the text. Each engaged the text according to his abilities and variables. Using Maimonides and Tosfot as successors of both groups. Maimonides despite being a philosopher focused extensively on language in both his Mishnaic commentary and Mishneh Torah. Maimonides was very careful how he phrased his laws and translated the Aramaic text into Hebrew. Tosfot was further isolated from the language of the Talmud and therefore took Rashi further in his logical enterprise. For Tosfot, Rashi’s liturgical deductions were too narrow minded while Tosfot scoured the entire compendium for frequent alternatives. Patterns would yield better results. More logic was applied for a trickier harmonisation of the text. This is not to say that Tosfot is incorrect because he stuck to logic over language but it does demonstrate the caution of Rashi as he interpreted by discussion alone to maintain a consistency with wordplay.  

It is important to note that prior to Rashi, Franco-German rabbis had written on the Talmud though not extensively. Rabbenu Gershom’s commentary was quite similar to RC’s in its clarifying metric though with variances here and there. R Nathan wrote a dictionary and apparently Rashi even consulted the works of Ben Saruq and Ibn Janah two of the most famous Iberian medieval grammarians. Rashi wasn’t devoid of linguistic education but was ignorant to the overall language. Even if he read these works, they were written in Arabic, a language he was not familiar with. Kudos to Rashi for his undertaking. On the other side one can see the evolution of Franco-German logic to Nahmanides to the pilpulists. The farther from talmudic era, the more logic applied. In the same vein, the first Maimonidean commentators were linguistics of the Maggid, Kesef and Lechem Mishneh. Over time the linguistic element became more logical with the Mishneh Limelech to Rav Chaim and Or Samaech. 

Both Maharshal for Talmud and Rabinovitch for Maimonides rekindled the linguistic prowess. This linguistic revolution varies from its predecessors as these linguistics are logical and academic instead of focusing on the mere language. Yet it cannot be truly ascertained in its original form since the new linguists despite their philosophical expertise are foreign to the primal language of the text. The style and format is reevaluated using modern techniques. These techniques are intellectual and fail to properly locate the authorial intent nor methodology. In a way undoing much of the earlier linguistic works is a superiority fascination that relies on patterns and estimation rather than the mind of the author himself. The reader is left to study the various sources and decide for himself which is the most possible conclusion. The only issue is that most of time a specific position or individual is propped up without the full context of his incorporation. 

Evidently, Rashi and RC are duking it out generations later in a different format. Steinsaltz published in Hebrew and English (though the English was more a team than a solo endeavour). While written or at least overseen by the same person, the versions could not be any more different. Like RC and Rashi, the Hebrew version came out first. Many were upset with Steinsaltz’s style. He butchered the daf and upended the usual model of learning. Yet his model why not the first translation was innovative. He translated the Aramaic into Hebrew with a few extra words for clarification. When reading his commentary it will write out the entire Talmud translating the Aramaic into Hebrew and leaving the Hebrew words while adding some detail for context. An easy read for native speakers who are just trying to understand the text. For all the talk of butchering the text and taking so much away from the sugya, Steinsaltz Hebrew offers the least evidence as it sticks strictly to translation. The Hebrew version is airtight clarifications. Steinsaltz paired his commentary alongside Rashi and Tosfot. On the right hand side, Steinsaltz runs alongside word by word while Rashi goes line by line. 

Steinsaltz English is written with more elaboration. Similar to other English translations such as Artscroll, the Aramaic words are translated bolded with extra words for clarification. The translation is insufficient to cohere therefore more words which don’t figure with the Aramaic fill out the proper syntax. Sometimes an introduction or a conclusion is added for signification. The translation is an entire summation of the Talmudic text. Written to perfection with proper comprehension. Unlike the Hebrew, the English cannot adequately simplify the Aramaic. It doesn’t flow as clearly. The English needs more words to explore and elucidate. The translation needs its explanation. The English is guided for a foreign reader who needs a two step process to comprehend. He must look to the bolded words but read with the non-bolded in between. The bold is the Aramaic but the subtitles are the meaning to the phrase. The English exists on a separate page. One devoted to its cause and direction.

Steinsaltz’s Hebrew is incredibly unique. No other Hebrew nor English version proceeds with the same method nor procures the same style. Even Hebrew Artscroll is an elaborated piece. Mesivta’s translations are commentarial opinions. Not only is his version highly original it voids much of the elongated chronicled discussion. Only Steinsaltz Hebrew points solely to its own translative character. The only noticeable pushback is his reliance on Rashi’s conclusions (while others dislike his credence to academic solutions to the text). He may signal RC’s punctuational clarifications but interpretations especially of complex or obscure concepts are readily aligned with Rashi. In his own irony to replicate RC’s passion for simplicity and translation he upheld Rashi’s logical enterprise as the correct solutions to the problems. In a sense he co-opted the modern linguistic paradigm with Rashi positions. While it does not make them wrong it does hypocritically promote a linguistic feature followed by a logical appeal.

The English version is like all other versions. Like Rashi it is built as an extension. One even more elaborated and defined than Rashi. Unlike Rashi, the modern reader is so far from Aramaic in his western culture that he struggles to understand the text without Artscroll. Even Rashi is confusing without a proper English translation in the footnotes. Artscroll applies the same logic of Rashi. Foreigners who need a longer explanation of the case at hand for easier comprehension. It is nothing to scoff at. The foreigner can only do so much with what he has. No amount of charts will assist the language disparity. He translate word by word but he needs the fillers for a coherent sentence and topic. The English provides the wording that fits the bill. Yet it transcends translation as it always has some more information that is of use. The summation is never just about translation but about a larger piece of the puzzle. What is implicit in the text. What is being implied can be inferred through logic. Analysis of the discussion leads to this conclusion. 

Though if Steinsaltz is so smooth and silly why are other Hebrew versions bigger and vaster? Isn’t Hebrew quite close to Aramaic? Why need such elaborated works? The use of the extended Artscroll is not a language issue but a cultural barrier. Just because one can translate does not mean they can interpret. For RC while they spoke Arabic they were pupils of the Babylonian schools of yore. The clarifications assisted linguistically but the knowledge was present. Rashi was not a student nor a successor so his model was logical. Artscroll plays by the same concept, so far from the culture, fillers are necessary to explain the concept. The words aren’t enough since they don’t make sense except through oral knowledge. Many say that the Hebrew Artscroll is better than the English due its superior explanation. It is easier in Hebrew given the linguistic references and connection. The fluidity is more smooth. Yet it doesn’t make the content obvious. Nevertheless, Steinsaltz’s undertaking is purely exquisite as it fulfills a need for simplicity and coherence. It guides the reader between modern Hebrew and Aramaic. Clarifying a few details here and there. It isn’t a replacement for Rashi but a worthy successor of RC.

Both versions offer different qualities and different points of view. Rashi spirit is strong for outsiders far away from the Sages and their linguistic culture. Logic is our way to mind ourselves along the strenuous adventure of the divine will. Yet the Hebrew provides a callback to the days of old. A time of expertise and concentration. Reconstituting the perspective of the Talmud. A text understood by native speakers. Translated thoroughly into a basic Hebrew to comprehend internalize. Looking for more elaboration Rashi is to the left but desiring for a quick translation Steinsaltz on the right has you covered. RC is the original translator though Steinsaltz’s books have survived their short stint and cover the entire Talmud. It is a blessing for both worlds to collide again. Both options are optimal. Whether more elaboration with Artscroll, sources with Mesivta or translation with Steinsaltz. One is not better than the other but provide different needs. A more Rashi or a more RC style will lead to various understandings of the Talmudic discussion. 

Two rabbinic legends who paved the way for Talmudic commentary. One who fell out of favour with the growing diaspora and one who set the tone for the millennium. One nearly lost to history and the other top of the most famous list. Reading side by side reveals not only the differences but the uniqueness separating them. It is this gap that marvels at their conclusions. It is truly a blessing that each Steinsaltz version represents a different sage. Both profound and inspiring and both resembling the origin of Talmudic commentary.