Four Perplexing Words in Rashi

Four Perplexing Words in Rashi

Four Perplexing Words in Rashi

By Eli Genauer

Shemot Perek 11, Pasuk 9:

(ט) וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, לֹא-יִשְׁמַע אֲלֵיכֶם פַּרְעֹה–לְמַעַן רְבוֹת מוֹפְתַי, בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם׃

Al HaTorah (based on the manuscript Leipzig 1) records Rashi’s comment on למען רבות מופתי as follows:

רשי: למען רבות מופתי – מכת בכורות, וקריעת ים סוף, ולנער את מצרים.

Here is Leipzig 1:

Artscroll Sapirstein edition (Brooklyn 1994) adds the words “מופתי שנים, רבות שלשה” in brackets at the beginning.

The words appear without any type of parentheses in Mikraot Gedolot HaBahir 2005. Oz Vehadar HaMevuar also has the words without parentheses. [1][2] 

It seems then that in some newer editions, the words מופתי שנים, רבות שלשה are an integral part of Rashi’s comments. Oz Vehadar explains those words as follows:

But there is a perplexing issue with the presentation of Oz Vehadar. It explains the words “מופתי שנים רבות שלשה” based on Rav Ovadiah MiBartenura, in the sefer attributed him called עמר נקא. I expected to see the words “מופתי שנים רבות שלשה” in the portion quoted in עמר נקא but we don’t find them at all in the quotation from Rashi, rather it appears like this:

It is clear that those words were not in Rav Ovadiah’s text of Rashi.

It is also odd that Oz Vehadar Rashi HaMevuar would have those words as an integral part of Rashi because it acknowledges that those words are missing from the defusim rishonim and from the critical editions of Avraham Berliner: In Rome (רומא), Dfus Rishon (דפוס ראשון Reggio di Callabria) and Avraham Berliner (רא״ב Zechor L’Avraham Frankfurt a/M 1905) the (four)words are missing.”

Aside from the early editions just mentioned, the words “מופתי שנים רבות שלשה” are not found in Soncino 1487, Zamora 1487, Lisbon 1491 or Napoli 1492.[3]

Here is Zamora:

Rashi HaShalem ( Mechon Ariel, 4th Volume 1992)doesn’t have it or even comment on it.

Rav Eliyahu Mizrachi ( Sefer Mizrachi Venice 1527) has a long comment on Rashi but does not include those words in his citing of what Rashi said:

למען רבות מופתי מכת בכורות וקריעת ים סוף ולנער את מצרים.

Avraham Berliner who was cited above (Berlin 1867 and Frankfurt am Main 1905) does not have “מופתי שנים רבות שלשה” either:

Most importantly, the words “מופתי שנים רבות שלשה” do not appear in any Rashi manuscript from the 40 I examined from 12th to the 15th century. As shown above, Leipzig 1 does not contain those words.[4]  Here is another example of an early manuscript without the words “מופתי שנים רבות שלשה”:

Berlin 1221

Based on not finding those words in any manuscript I examined, and the fact that the words were not recorded in any early printed edition, nor were they included by Berliner, nor do they appear in the Vienna 1859 Mikraot Gedolot of Shlomo Zalman Netter, nor mentioned in any way by Rashi HaShalem, I feel comfortable saying that the words“מופתי שנים רבות שלשה” most likely were not written by Rashi. So where did they come from and how did they get to be included in such prominent editions such as Artscroll (where they appear in brackets) and Oz VeHadar Rashi HaMevuar?

As mentioned, the words are not in any manuscript nor in any early printed edition of Rashi. Going forward in the history of printing, they don’t appear in any edition of Rashi all through the 1500’s and 1600’s including the important Bomberg Venice 1518 and 1526 Mikarot Gedolot, Rashi and Chizkuni Venice 1524, Venice 1538, and Sabionetta 1638.

Here is the important Rashi edition of Sabionetta 1557 where the four words are missing:

The first time that I found the extra words included in print is in Yosef Da’at (Prague 1609) Though ordinarily the author Rav Yosef ben Yissachar cites a source for his additions, here he does not.

He just says כן נראה לי –כנ״ל. It is unclear to me whether he had a manuscript which had the words “מופתי שנים רבות שלשה” or it was just his opinion that they be added to explain the words of Rashi which followed.

It does not appear in an edition of Rashi printed soon after Yosef Da’at, that of Amsterdam 1644:

Nor in the first edition of Siftei Chachamim of Amsterdam 1680 ( which often includes the edits of Yosef Da’at) or the Amsterdam Chumash of 1682.

It is not in Dhyenfurth 1693 nor in Berlin 1705 or Frankfurt an der Oder in 1728 and even later there in 1784. It is not in Fuerth 1841 or Vienna 1831 or Vienna 1859 (Netter) nor Warsaw 1861.

The first edition after the Yosef Da’at in which I found it was in Amsterdam 1749:

It is also in Amsterdam 1757:

Amsterdam 1797 has it also with no parentheses,

The words are included in the highly regarded edition of Zhitomir 1870:

It is also in Bait Dovid Lemberg 1909 w/o parentheses.

I find this case to be quite unusual. There are words that most likely were not written by Rashi which have made it into mainstream editions today. They appear because of a comment made by Yosef Da’at where it is not even clear if he meant them to be included in the text of Rashi. Normally when Yosef Da’at introduces some words, they are included in the first edition of Siftai Chachamim in 1680 but here they don’t show up until the mid-1700’s. They appear from then onwards in some editions and some do not have them. The very influential Mikraot Gedolot of Vienna and Warsaw do not have them. Those editions usually set the standard for those that followed but here that is not the case.

[1] Accessed through Otzar HaHochma which now temporarily has open access

[2] Oz VeHadar on page 2 of their forward to Breishit (2018) states that they used the Frankfurt AM edition of 1905 as their base text and to avoid confusion, they did not include parentheses. But they also say that they had Defusim Kedumim which they used to further edit the text. I believe that this is one case where they might have considered doing so as these words do not appear in any Defusim Kedumim nor in Avraham Berliner’s book of 1905 which they cite in this case.


[3] It differentiates Alkabetz (signified by באל׳) from Rome, Dfus Rishon and Berliner, but I found that portion the same there.


[4] The manuscripts are available through the Al HaTorah website at https://alhatorah.org/Commentators:Online_Rashi_Manuscripts. Here are a few more: 

Oxford CCC 165 (Neubauer 2440)- 12th century

Munich 5

Bodelian Library MS Oppenheim 34

Paris 155

image_pdfimage_print
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

10 thoughts on “Four Perplexing Words in Rashi

  1. I’ve not looked into any of this, but it looks like a persuasive case.

    It should be noted that the notion of people writing glosses to other works which then get mistakenly incorporated into those works is widespread, and there is an enormous amount of speculation along those lines about various problematic phrases in all sorts of works.

  2. You could also have mentioned the excellent edition “Torat Hayyim” put out by Mosad Harav Kook in 1988. It also omits the words, but includes the note from Chavel, who puts the issue of 2 and 3 as coming from a book called Deveq Tov

    1. Thank you
      An “observant” reader also pointed it out to me.
      Devek Tov was a Peirush on Rashi first printed in Venice in 1588 by שמעון בן יצחק אושנבורג. Hebrewbooks.org has three editions

  3. Perplexing indeed!

    See also Maskil LeDavid (Pardo) who interprets Rashi along the lines of Amar Naka, and quite apparently also did not have those words in his text.

  4. I enjoyed this article very much. The work and effort you put in is very much appreciated. Three questions.
    1. Is the conclusion to be drawn that Artscroll and Oz Vehadar rely heavily on Yosef Da’at; are there other proofs to this?
    2. In the Rashi Hashalem you quoted, in the back it quotes three different editions of Rashi. All don’t have those words. I was wondering are those the only כתבי ידות that exist today and that’s why they use those or not, what were your findings?
    3. Has there been any work to put together an Onklus using all the main manuscripts (I know of two, the standard and the one in the Netziv)?

  5. … יש ספרים כתוב מופתי שתים רבות ג’, ונראה שט”ס הוא ותלמיד טועה הגיה כן
    (יריעות שלמה, מהרש”ל)

  6. Reading this post and the comments has led me to find much more…. Yerios Shlomo of the Maharshal should really be considered first source on these extra words, as noted by מעתיק above. It is available in Hebrewbooks in the Prague edition published by R. Yechiel ben Meshulam from Wranik. The introduction contains a complaint that much of the material was incorporated in an unauthorized work called קצור מזרחי. This is also available at hebrewbook both in a Prague edition dated 363 (1603) by Yitzchak ben naftali Hertz Buking and an edition dated 365 (1605). I have not yet had time to browse both throughly. There is a great introduction full of historical information about the commentators of his time….

  7. Incidentally Rabbi Kliers wrote in Hamaayan about the sources Maharshal had in his library. More than one reference made by Maharshal to כתב יד מדוייק של רש״י in his possession. BUT here Maharshal wrote that it must be a mistaken addendum of the copyist since Kriyas Yam Suf and מנער את מצרים are one event, therefore there were 2 more מופתים planned and not 3. If Maharshal used a logical proof rather than a comparison of his different versions of Rashi, one can assume that it was in both printed and manuscript versions in front him.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *