INTRODUCTION:
Not too much is known about Rashi’s grandson, Rabbi Shmuel
ben Meir or Rashbam, brother of Rabbenu Tam. He lived in northern France, but
the dates of his birth and passing are not clear, although they are believed to
be from around 1080 to 1160.
THE PSHAT MOVEMENT:
During this time there was great trend amongst the
commentators to expound the pshat, or simple, literal and contextual
meaning of the Torah text. In a strange irony, his grandfather Rashi claimed to
have only commented according to the pshat[1] or
simple meaning of the Torah, yet most of his commentary is taken from midrashim
(earlier texts which go far beyond the literal interpretation, often
offering detailed explanations for gaps in the Torah narrative).
It was his grandson, Rashbam, however who really did stick faithfully to the simple literal text (to his own detriment, as we shall see), and Rashi is said to have acknowledged the fact that Rashbam was the pure pshatist.
It was his grandson, Rashbam, however who really did stick faithfully to the simple literal text (to his own detriment, as we shall see), and Rashi is said to have acknowledged the fact that Rashbam was the pure pshatist.
RASHBAM’ S
MANUSCRIPTS:
It’s also interesting to note that Rashi’s commentaries were
always popular and abundant, with literally hundreds of his early manuscripts
surviving to this day. This was not the case with Rashbam, as only one
manuscript of his Torah commentaries survived until it disappeared during the
Holocaust. And even that manuscript had sections missing. Fortunately, in 1705
the manuscript was published in print form[2].
This means that there could not have been much serious study of Rasbam’s Torah
commentaries before the 1700’s.
RASHBAM’S TORAH
COMMENTARY VS TALMUDIC COMMENTARY:
Another irony is that Rashbam (besides his interest in pshat),
was also a founder of the analytical school of Talmudic study known as Ba’alei
Tasafot[3].
In his Talmudic commentary he is known to have adhered exactingly to Talmudic
thought[4]
and conventional halachic practices - which was not always the case when
he commented on the pshat of Torah.
It’s almost as if he meant his Torah commentary to be taken academically while his Talmudic commentaries were to be taken halachically and pragmatically. In his Torah commentary he was prepared to explain, theoretically and academically, some things that were at variance to accepted halachik practices (although he never ever advocated any practical departure from standard halacha).[5]
It’s almost as if he meant his Torah commentary to be taken academically while his Talmudic commentaries were to be taken halachically and pragmatically. In his Torah commentary he was prepared to explain, theoretically and academically, some things that were at variance to accepted halachik practices (although he never ever advocated any practical departure from standard halacha).[5]
It is with regard to some of his Torah commentary, that much
controversy abounds, and it is there that he is considered by some to be a
radical commentator.[6]
SETTING THE STAGE FOR
THE SHOWDOWN:
One of the key points of contention between the members of
the Pshat movement themselves,was how to interpret a verse of the Torah
if the contextual meaning differed from accepted halachic practice.
Ibn Ezra (1089-1167) believed that halacha always
trumped pshat, so that in cases where the contextual meaning contradicts
the accepted halachic practice, one would always choose the halachic
interpretation over the contextual meaning.[7]
Rashbam, on the other hand, being a purist, believed that under
the same circumstances, when studying pshat, one would always adhere to
the contextual meaning instead of ignoring it for the halachic
interpretation.[8] Rashbam explained this clearly when he said; ‘I
have not come to expound the halachot, even though they are vital. The halachot
can be learned from my grandfather’s (i.e. Rashi’s) commentaries, but I have
come only to explain the literal and contextual meaning of the verses.’
Then, in the same paragraph, he again emphasizes that on a practical level halacha is never to be dismissed. It’s just that he makes the stark distinction between the theoretical study of pshat and the practical religious requirement of halachic observance.[9]
Then, in the same paragraph, he again emphasizes that on a practical level halacha is never to be dismissed. It’s just that he makes the stark distinction between the theoretical study of pshat and the practical religious requirement of halachic observance.[9]
THE CONTROVERSY:
We don’t have to wait long for one of the greatest
controversies to play out. Commenting on
verse 5 of Genesis, Rashbam drops a halachik bombshell. Everyone knows that
the Jewish day begins in the evening and ends the following evening. But
Rashbam points out that while that may be the case, we need to understand that the
accepted convention is not in accordance with the pshat of the Torah.
He explains: “And it was evening and it was morning” – it’s not
written ‘night and morning’, but ‘evening and morning’, implying that as the
first day unfolded, the ‘light’ set and then turned into evening which then transitioned
into morning. It was only after morning arrived that the Torah declared ‘one
day’. Thus a biblical day was morning to morning.[10]
Rashbam’s definition of a biblical day, according to his
understanding of the contextual pshat, is morning to morning, as opposed
to the halachic definition of evening to evening!
IBN EZRA’S ‘SHABBOS
LETTER’:
When Ibn Ezra got wind of this interpretation, we witness
one of the most aggressive reactions ever to take place within the world of
Torah commentary.
It appears as though one particular Friday, a manuscript of
Rashbam’s Torah commentary innocently arrived in England, where Ibn Ezra was
living at that time.[11]
Ibn Ezra tells the rest of the story himself (paraphrase):
“One Shabbat[12],
I, Avraham the Sephardi, also known as Ibn Ezra, was on the island known as the
Edge of the World. In the middle of the night, I had a dream in which a man
handed me a letter from Shabbat herself. Initially I was so excited and
honoured that Shabbat had sent me a letter until I got to the end, when my
heart dropped. I couldn’t understand why Shabbat was so upset with me as I had always
cherished her with all my soul.
The letter read:
‘I am Shabbat. The
forth of the Ten Commandments, the day on which the manna did not fall, the day
which brings joy and calmness to all, the day when mourners do not mourn and the dead are not eulogized, when even
animals rest, and when wisdom is to be found a hundredfold compared to
weekdays. I have always protected you and you have guarded me.
But now a mistake has
been made. And you have a book in your house which will cause people to
desecrate the seventh day. How can you remain silent and not protest?’
In the dream, the messenger told me that my students had brought
me a book the previous day in which it is written to desecrate Shabbat. He told
me to fight at all costs against the enemies of Shabbat.
I awoke trembling and angry. I washed my hands and found the
(Rashbam’s) book and took it to the moonlight, where I read that the definition
of a day was morning to morning! I wanted to tear my clothes as well as the
page out of the book, but I did not want to desecrate Shabbat. I made a vow
that I would not sleep the next night until I had written a letter explaining
the true interpretation that ‘day’ is measured evening to evening.
This (Rashbam’s) interpretation is causing all Israel to go
astray. Anyone who reads it out loud or believes it - may their tongue stick to
their palate. Any scribe who writes it - may their hand dry up and be blinded –
while all the rest of Israel will have light!”
[13]
ANALYSIS:
Although Rashbam made it quite clear, as we mentioned above,
that he always upheld practical halacha - he nevertheless believed there
was a place for theoretical and contextual interpretation of Torah verses even when
they were in opposition to halacha (as long as inferences were not made
that laws could be changed). This ‘disclaimer’ was not enough for Ibn Ezra,
hence his violent attack against Rashbam.
One wonders if Rashbam’s duel ‘academic\halachik approach’ was not one of the reasons why his Torah
commentaries were so rare in the centuries which followed, and why only one
partial manuscript survived till 1945.
This may also be the reason why some modern editions of
Mikraot Gedolot, a compendium of various Torah commentators, chose to either
leave out Rashbam entirely, or censor out some of his controversial sections
such as the example we cited.[14]
SUPPORT FOR RASHBAM’S
VIEW:
The interesting fact, though, is that one can make a very
strong argument is support of Rashbam’s position. No less an authority than Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi,
the redactor of the Mishna, a thousand years before Rashbam, held a similar
view that according to the contextual pshat of the verses, a biblical
day may indeed have been morning to morning.[15]
Also Rashi comments that; ‘the sun rules for half a day
followed by the moon for the other half, making one complete day’.[16]
It seems as if Rav Saadiah, according to pshat, held
this view as well.[17]
So did Rabbi Reuven Margaliot.
Rabbi Ovadiah Yoseph cites many sources explaining that the
day was measured from morning to morning until the Torah was given at Sinai,
when it was changed by convention to evening to evening.
None of these views suggest any practical deviation
whatsoever from the parameters of the halachik day, and no one seems to
have been upset with them for their theoretical reading of pshat.
Yet Ibn Ezra, as we pointed out, believed that pshat
must never be allowed to contradict halacha, hence his strenuous
opposition to Rashbam.
Furthermore, historically, there were sectarian Jews who did depart from traditional convention and did indeed begin observing Shabbat from Saturday morning to Sunday morning.[18] This too must also have sparked his opposition and may have been the cause for his ‘targeted attack’ against Rashbam.
Furthermore, historically, there were sectarian Jews who did depart from traditional convention and did indeed begin observing Shabbat from Saturday morning to Sunday morning.[18] This too must also have sparked his opposition and may have been the cause for his ‘targeted attack’ against Rashbam.
AFTERTHOUGHT:
I have another theory as to why there may have been such
remarkable antagonism towards Rashbam in particular. In the same section of
commentary that we have been dealing with, there is yet another theological bombshell
that may have been overlooked by many.
Rashbam comments; “In the beginning G-d created – this means
that at the beginning of creating heaven and earth, at the time that the
supernal heaven and earth were already created – whether that lasted a long
time or a short time, the earth was void and without form.”
Never mind the controversy over the pshat as
to when the day begins, but there may additionally be the other thorny issue of
some aspect of creation lasting ‘a long time or a short time’...
--------------------------------
UPDATE:
I am so happy to be able to offer additional insight by my dear friend and respected Rosh Yeshivah, Rabbi Chaim Finkelstein:
The time period of the Rishonim can really be called the
best of times and the worst of times. The best of times in the proliferation of
creative thinking and writing, both in halacha and theology and yet the worst
of times in that the self same creativity came under great scrutiny and
criticism from the major Rishonim, who berated those views deemed questionable
and did so in the most vitriolic way. The question begs, why is it that sages
of great mental ability, minds immeasurably superior to ours, could not cope
with the novel approaches and could not see the rationale in the same way we
can analyse these opinions today and find favour with them?
The answer perhaps presents itself when we appreciate the
full import of what the Rishonim were doing in those days. At that point in
time the Talmud was basically a closed book, the language, the style of
dialectic, the simple meaning, was all impossible to understand without user
friendly aids. The Rishonim were deciphering and creating a standard
interpretation of the Talmud for posterity and setting down the principles upon
which the halacha would rest. In other words the Rishonim were the keepers and
the preservers of the oral Torah, a Torah which was not accessible in its
current state.
Understanding the need for exactness in such a critical
project, and that creativity could cost the integrity of the transmission of
the oral Torah, it stands to reason why purists had to defend the Torah with
severe outcries against any perceived distortion, because one wrong thought would
translate into generations of wrong lore and practice. An extreme example was
cited in Rabbi Michal's blogabout the community of Crete who observed Shabbos
from Saturday morning to Sunday morning, an error of epic proportions which
could have started with a creative twist of an interpretation.
In our times when the guidelines are set and the Shulchan
Aruch forms the basis of expository halacha, we can consider novel ideas with
more open mindedness, and even try to resolve them, as these ideas don't threaten
the basis of our Mitzva performance, like in the times of the Rishonim, only
our paradigms and comfort zones.
....................
The Gemara in Hullin 83a and 83b discusses the
prohibition of slaughtering the mother and calf on the same day. Rabbi Shimon
held that the day means first night then day and derived it from "yom
echad" to follow creation. Rebbi derived something else from "yom echad",
not that day follows night. Interesting that Rebbi is Rabbi Yehudah who could
hold that "yom echad" in Breishis does not mean that after night and
day "yom echad", but that after erev and bokker the day finishes and
"yom echad" means something else...
[1] Or,
as Rashi called it; ‘peshuto shel mikrah’. This trend towards the pshat
(the plain meaning of the Torah text) became so widespread, that a movement
was started that become known as the Pshat
movement. See Masters of the Word, by Rabbi Yonatan Koltach, p. 91.
[2]
Interestingly, other parts of the missing manuscript were discovered in 1853 by
a German Reform rabbi, Abraham Geiger, who published it and made it available
to the Jewish world. Then in 1881, David Rosin reconstructed other missing
sections and published an almost complete edition (with only parshat Pinchas
missing). This edition then became the basis for its inclusion in the well
known Mikraot Gedolot series (such as the Shulsinger edition of 1950, and HaMaor
of 1986).
[3]
Rashbam and the Baalei Tosafot generally did not quote mystical sources. (But
see Masters of the Word, ibid. where a different view is cited, p.94 note 5.)
[4] He
wrote commentaries to two Talmudic tractates (which were actually a completion
of Rashi’s commentaries to those same tractates), namely Bava Batra and Pesachim.
[5] See
Rashbam – A Short Bio, by Rabbi Martin Lockshin, Ph.D.
[6] Although
he generally stayed on the straight and narrow in his Talmudic commentaries,
there is an instance where he denounced a ‘problematic section of the Talmud as
“a later insertion of a long commentary by fools” (Bava Batra 137b). Rabbenu
Tam criticized his brother for this unorthodox approach.’ (Masters of the Word
ibid. P. 92.)
It should also be added that the other time his
brother (Rabbenu Tam) complained about him was when he emended ‘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 did.’ (See Rabhbam – A Short Bio ibid.)
[7] See
Ibn Ezra’s introduction to his Torah Commentary.
[8] See
Rashbam’s introduction to Parshat Mishpatim.
[9]
Another irony is that Ibn Ezra, although championing the halachic
component over pshat, was never regarded as a great halachist by
his contemporaries, nor is he generally quoted in reference to any
authoritative halachic ruling. Some even spoke disparagingly about his halachic
acumen. Rashbam, however, was often quoted as an authoritative halachik
opinion.
[10] See
Rashbam commentary to Genesis 1:5 ‘she’alah amud hashachar – harei hushlam yom
echad.’
[11]
According to many, Ibn Ezra passed away in England as well.
[12] 14
Tevet 4919. (1158)
[13] See
Introduction to Ibn Ezra’s Igeret HaShabbat.
[14]
Rabbi Professor Marc Shapiro in his Seforim Blog has famously brought to our
attention how ArtScroll censored out these sections of Rashbam in their edition
of Mikraot Gedolot, without any indication or notification that sections had
been removed. The most complete version of Rashbam’s commentary can be found,
however, in the Torat Chaim edition.
[15] See
Emor VeAmarta, by Rabbi Eliyahu Katz, as cited by Marc Shapiro.
[16]
Rashi on Bereishit 1:14
[17] See
Perushei Rabbenu Saadia Gaon al HaTorah, p. 71, as cited by Marc Shapiro.
[18]
According to Marc Shapiro who cites Binyamin of Tudela, these may have been the
Mishawites of Cyprus.
No comments:
Post a Comment