Prestigious Fan-fiction

By: Jonathan Seidel

Rashi’s derash: good intentions bad consequences 

Rashi wasn’t an idiot. Rashi knew his commentary wasn’t a translation of the text. Yet Rashi’s interpretations did attempt to convey a new truth. Above all there is a new perception of midrash that becomes entrenched in its literalism. 

Reading Rashi’s commentary on Tanakh and Talmud will lead to divergent understandings of methodology and ideology. Rashi’s Tanakh commentary is riddled with midrashim while his Tamudic commentary is straightforward. Rashi was somewhat of a linguist but even in his talmudic commentary it is clear he was a contextualist like his grandsons. He many not have played with dialectics but his understanding of sugyot prefers what seems to fit best not what does the word mean. Context is always important but a mistranslation undermines the contextual paradigm. Rashi is known as the line by line peshat commentary. Yet a closer look disagrees. It is actually through Tosafot’s challenges that Rashi becomes more clear. Tosafot challenges Rashi’s reading because Rashi isn’t translating he is interpreting. Unlike Steinsaltz to some degree the goal isn’t to interpret the words in the sequence but interpret the sequence in the paragraph. Tosafot challenges Rashi since they are on the same playing field. Both interpreting based on the context of the text rather than the syntax of the text.

This is very important because this begins to reclassify Rashi’s approach. Even if he was aware of Ben Saruq or Ibn Janah’s work, his obvious at times wrongful translation is evident of a misunderstanding. Rashi spoke old French which is quite far from Aramaic and Hebrew. French is not a semitic language. Many times his one word answers are mistaken. Yet he commonly is not translating but interpreting the sugya. Tosafot interprets the sugya against others. Rashi didn’t necessarily see the Talmud as a unified corpus in the same breath Tosafot did as he does at times define the same words or at least similar words different with later scholars harmonising. Rashi’s role was interpreting the sugya in front of him. Yet such a loaded sugya need not be symmetrical in every way. If a word seems ambiguous or means something else in every other place it probably does not mean what you think it means in order for it to “make sense”. Rashi at times forces translations or extensions to unify the text. Since Rashi wasn’t translating and more interpreting Tosafot happily opposed. Rashi may be correct in many instances contextually but linguistically is far from it. 

All to show that even Rashi’s talmudic commentary was not peshat. At least not in the way that his geonic predecessors were nor his grandsons on Tanakh. Rashi does a great job of elucidating the text but at times its seems there is a reliance on his translation even if it is terse since how could Rashi be wrong. How could a Frenchmen misinterpret an aramaic text. It almost seems inevitable. Nevertheless his talmudic commentary truly is incredible. Then again, many rationalists will learn Rashi on Gemara but not too keen on Tanakh. Rashi’s Tanakh commentary is foreign to interpretations. Ibn Ezra and Rashbam lambasted Rashi for disassociating from the text. Sometimes it is even humorous to see Nahmanides defend Rashi against the Arabic poet Ibn Ezra. The latter is not always correct but his linguistic ancestry and knowledge of the lexicon is superior to the Hebraic scholastics. Interestingly, Rashbam and Bechor Shor both Tosafists do a pretty good job with proper translations. Following the phonetics and syntax like a dictionary. Imperfect but that is expected by everyone. They are of the few Ashekanzi thinkers who not only paid close attention to plain readings but excelled rather nicely. 

Leading to Rashi’s midrashic use. There are many pros here. The use of Rashi’s midrashim is not unheard of. There are many cases in the midrashic works as well as the Talmud of rabbinic interpretations. Deciphering cryptic codes into coherent messages. The Sages were the first biblical commentators. They brilliantly analysed the text, asked the correct questions and adequately deduced the solutions. Yet it is unclear whether these midrashim were accepted as canon and whether they were even attempting to translate. On the part of the latter the entire geonic era for the better part of a half a millennium did not accept midrashim literally. They were nice ideas but not those truly transpiring in the text. They were not ancient legends but sermonic messages. Nice teachings of the forefathers. If they weren’t literally true then it also compromises their interpretation. If the Sages interpreted the text correctly then interpretation would be fact. Many of the geonim regarded them as subjective cases of wisdom. Each Sage imbued his resilience into how he approached the text. What was the text trying to teach him and how he could educate others. The goal wasn’t translating the Torah but inspiring the masses.

If this is the case then midrashim are no more than expositions of cryptic texts. This differs heavily from the legal side as that was bound in the oral law. The fragmented code of halakha was orally transmitted referenced in the narration. The cryptic stories were not esoterically laced but exegetically reinforced. Stories about Abraham and Moses were not left out of the Torah but never happened. Questions wished to be answered and through genius elaboration, fictions of these heroes formed. The rabbinic voice elevated our heroes answering our inquires of where they were and what made them so great. Narrated extensions left to the imagination were grasped by the Sages to be educated to the masses. To teach them as a lullabies to their children. They are oral insofar as they are just bedtime stories. They are not to be taught in the classroom nor are they to be recognised as canonical. Anyone can extrapolate and identify further with their biblical hero. The true translation was one based in the biblical poetry that was unlocked by Bechor Shor and Radak. One of oral communication. One that cared for pronunciation and facilitation. 

 

The issue is that Rashi and his successors interpreted these midrashim as fact. It is through these midrashim that we learn more about our heroes. Rashi didn’t pick random legends, he quoted from the extensive literature. He bound up the midrashim as linguistic weapons. Yet it was never the purpose to interpret but rather to teach. There is some interpretation involved but not one that cares for the purity of the text. It is one that announces more profound esoteric ideals and mystery. An interpretation that serves little to learn the text and is more governed to children. Rashi’s structure is symmetrical and strategic but it doesn’t make his conclusions true. Justifying their use for his correct translations mitigates their affect. Using expositions as a measure of translation is the same as using a secondary source to justify a primary source. It doesn’t make it true especially when the goal wasn’t to translate but to elaborate. To add more legendary performances. The fact that there is rarely a concern for syntax and morphology undermines its rightful translative goal. 

Due to Rashi’s vision and its acceptance into the lore of Jewish history, midrashim are a part of Jewish legends. Generally it is aggadot that are insecure but midrashim at least brought by Rashi are genuine. Midrashim are but a way of electrifying our heroes not grounding them. The Torah must not be interpreted by a false premise. Adding further to the wrongful manner of literalism dismantles the symbolic representation of the text. The text is a cryptic signifier to the true coded language. There is deeper meaning but that meaning is through language not myth. The midrash can explore and annunciate the biblical hero but it mustn’t be the basis of their character. More know of Abraham’s youthful exploits than much of the textual evidence. What takes over is the lore rather than the actual textual messaging. There is nothing wrong with embellishment more or even fiction as long as it remains symbolic. Even the Kabbalah is fine as long as the supernal sphere does not manifest in its literalist agenda. The entire symbolic framework is demurred and defiled in the face of mythical creature and dubious notions of the textual criteria. 

There is what to gain from Rashi. Rashi does bring in a lot of messages. That is the power of midrash. As symbolic is entices and inspires. Was Abraham thrown in the furnace? Maybe not but his profound youth was mesmerising. How he figured out God does not change that when God called him he had a following. He was noticeable and popular. Moses was unique as an Egyptian prince turned redeemer. The extant of their powers or grand accomplishments need not grace the text yet to elongate their legacy why not marshal the textual possibles and the remaining inquiries concerning them.