A Comment of Rashi Found Only in “Defusim Me’Ucharim”
A Comment of Rashi Found Only in “Defusim Me’Ucharim”
On Shemot 31:15
By Eli Genauer
Summary:
We find a lengthy comment attributed to Rashi which is only found in what is termed “Defusim Me’Ucharim”. The comment first appears in the Sefer Yosef Da’at (Prague 1609) who attributes it to a D’fus Yashan and a Klaf Yashan Noshan. I did not find it in any of the over 60 manuscripts I checked nor in any early printed edition.[1] It was incorporated into subsequent printed editions on a very uneven basis from the 1600’s to 1800’s but now seems to be part of the mainstream text of Rashi.
שמות ל“א
(טו) שֵׁ֣שֶׁת יָמִים֮ יֵעָשֶׂ֣ה מְלָאכָה֒ וּבַיּ֣וֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִ֗י שַׁבַּ֧ת שַׁבָּת֛וֹן קֹ֖דֶשׁ לַה’ כׇּל־הָעֹשֶׂ֧ה מְלָאכָ֛ה בְּי֥וֹם הַשַּׁבָּ֖ת מ֥וֹת יוּמָֽת׃
רש“י: From Al Hatorah based on Leipzig 1
שבת שבתון – היא מנוחת מרגוע ולא מנוחת עראי. קדש לה’ – שמירת קדושתה לשמי ובמצותיי.
Leipzig 1
Munich 5 has the same text
Rashi HaMevuar (Oz Vehadar 2017, also included in all Oz VeHadar editions) has an extra comment (starting from a second Dibur HaMatchil of שַׁבַּ֧ת שַׁבָּת֛וֹן ) in parentheses.[2] The footnotes do not explain what the source was.
Rashi HaMevuar then states in their section of Chilufai Girsaot that it is not in any early printed edition.[3]
Rashi Hashalem ( Mechon Ariel, Shemot Volume 4, 2005) says that it is included in some later editions (Defusim Me’Ucharim) but does not comment on it source or authenticity.[4]
Torah Shlaimah of Rav Menachem Kasher, Jerusalem 1959, uses similar language by saying that this additional comment of Rashi can be found in Defusim Achronim.
Avraham Berliner (Zechor L’Avraham Berlin 1867) attributes this comment only to Yosef Da’at and puts it below the line. In the 1905 Frankfurt am Main edition it is not included.
This is how it is presented in Yosef Da’at:
גירסת דפ״ס (דפוס ?) ישן
והוא סוף הדבור בספרים אחרים ואחר כך הדבור קדש לה׳ כו׳ כך מצאתי ברש״׳ קלף ישן נושן
There seems to be three sources, a D’fus Yashan, Sefarim Achairim, and a Klaf Yashan Noshan.
Although there is some speculation that the Rashi Yashan Noshan is the manuscript known as Hebrew Union College Library, Cincinnati, OH, USA Ms. JCF 1, it does not appear there.
Question: Is Yosef Da’at the first source for later editions which include this comment and if so, when was the comment added to printed editions?
Despite Yosef Da’at statement that this comment was found in a Dfus Noshan, I did not find any printed editions which include this comment until after the printing of Yosef Da’at.[5] One might have expected to see it in an edition of Chumash printed immediately following Yosef Da’at in 1609, and that would be in the Hanau edition of 1611-1614. That edition had the כללים לשימוש רש“י בתרגום which were first printed in Yosef Da’at and was identified as one of the more important ones in setting the text of Rashi in subsequent editions.[6] But the comment is not included there.
The first time I could find this extended comment in print was in an edition of Rashi printed in Amsterdam in 1669
אמשטרדם : דפוס דוד די קאשטרו תארטס
It includes the כללים לשימוש רש“י בתרגום which we find in Yosef Da’at indicating that the editor was most likely familiar with this edition.
Amsterdam 1669 Yosef Da’at
None of the early Meforshai Rashi, such as Mizrachi and Gur Aryeh, comment on this statement.[7] Additionally, although Yosef Da’at attributes the comment to Klaf Yoshan Noshan, I did not find it in any of the manuscripts I checked.[8]
Manuscripts aside from Leipzig 1, HUC JCF 1, Munich 5 (see above) and Berlin 121(see footnote vi) which don’t have it
Access to links for these manuscripts through Al HaTorah[9]:
https://alhatorah.org/Commentators:Online_Rashi_Manuscripts
12th Century (?): –
Oxford CCC 165 (Neubauer 2440)
13th Century:
Hamburg 13 (1265), Hamburg 32 (Steinschneider 37), Oxford-Bodley Opp. 34 (Neubauer 186)
London 26917 (Neubauer 168) (1272), Berlin 1221, Berlin Qu 514 (1289) , Florence Plut.III.03 (1291)
Vatican Urbinati 1 (1294), Paris 155, Parma 2708, Parma 2868, Parma 3081
13th-14th Century:
Parma 3204 (De Rossi 181), Weimar 651, Berlin 1222, Berlin 121, Paris 156, Paris 157
British Library Harley 1861 (Margoliouth 169), British Library Harley 5709 (Margoliouth 170)
British Library Harley 5708 (Margoliouth 171), Vienna Cod. Hebr. 220 (Schwarz 23)
14th Century:
Parma 3115 (1305), Parma 3256 (1312), Frankfurt 19 (1340), Paris 48, Paris 37, Vienna Cod. Hebr. 3 (Schwarz 24)
London 19665 (Margoliouth 174) London 26924 (Margoliouth 175), London 26878 (Margoliouth 177)
London 22122 (Margoliouth 178), Oxford-Bodley Mich. 384 (Neubauer 187) (1399)
14th-15th Century:
British Library Harley 5655 (Margoliouth 180), Paris 159, Breslau 11 (Saraval 5)
15th Century:
Oxford-Bodley Opp. 35 (Neubauer 188) (1408), Breslau 102 (Saraval 12) (1421)
Breslau 10 (Saraval 7) (1449), Frankfurt 152, Paris 158, London 19653 (Margoliouth 181)
Conclusion
Aside from the Klaf Yashan Noshan cited by Yosef Da’at, this extended comment most likely was in a small minority of manuscripts. The fact that it made it into mainstream study of Rashi seems tied to its inclusion in Yosef Da’at.
[1] All manuscripts were accessed through Al HaTorah and KTIV. All books were accessed through hebrewbooks.org, Otzar HaChochmah and using the search engine of Merhav at the National Library of Israel.
[2] Artscroll Stone Edition of Chumash, Sapirsten edition of Rashi and all other Artscroll editions also have the comment in parentheses. The Sapirstein Rashi gives no explanation for why this is so. The comment also appears in Chumash HaMizrachi Petach Tikvah 1993, Mikraot Gedolot Meorot, Jerusalem 1995, (without parentheses) Ateret Rashi Jerusalem 1998, Ohr HaChama Jerusalem 2003, Chumash HaBahir Jerusalem 2005, Ha’amaek Davar, Jerusalem 2007, and Mikraot Gedolot HaChut HaMeshulash Jerusalem 2013
The comment is not found in Torat Chaim of Mosad HaRav Kook, Jerusalem, 1993
[3] I checked Rome 1470, Dfus Rishon (Reggio di Calabrio) 1475, Alkabetz, Guadalajara 1476, Bologna 1482, Soncino 1487, Ixar 1490, Lisbon 1491, Zamora 1497. I also checked the following representative editions printed from 1500 until 1609 and did not find the addition in them. Bomberg Venice 1518, Bomberg Venice 1548, Rashi Sabionetta 1557, Riva Di Trento 1561, Cracow 1587, and Basel 1606
[4] Similarly, Be’er Yakov Jerusalem 2008 (below the line) writes that this comment is a Hosafa B’Dfusim Achronim.
[5]
It is not in Hanau 1611-14, Amsterdam (Menashe ben Yisrael) 1635, Kushta 1639, Amsterdam Rashi 1644, Amsterdam 1680 (first edition of Siftei Chachamim), Amsterdam 1682, Berlin 1705, Frankfurt/Oder 1728, Venice 1740, Frankfurt/Oder 1784, Vienna 1794, Dubrovna 1804, Vienna 1831, Fuerth 1841, Livorno 1854, and Lemberg 1864
It also does not appear in Vienna 1859 or Warsaw 1861, both of which were considered important editions of Mikraot Gedolot
The following is a list of those editions I checked from the 1600’s onwards which do include this comment.
Wilhemsdorf 1680 ווילהרמרשדארף : דפוס יצחק בן יהודה יודלש
But not in Wilhemsdorf 1713 ווילהרמרשדארף : דפוס יצחק בן יהודה יודלש, despite it being the same printer.
It is in Amsterdam 1749, 1755 and 1757, Hamburg 1787, Amsterdam Proops 1797 Tikun Sofrim, Amsterdam 1827 (Gavriel ben Itzchak Polak), Rashi Al HaTorah Prague 1838 (M.I. Landau), Roedelheim 1860, Warsaw 1873, Malbim Warsaw 1880, Lemberg 1909, Torat Gavriel Jerusalem 1910 (without parentheses), New York 1953, Rav Peninim, Jerusalem 1959, New York 1971.
[6] This article https://www.machonso.org/hamaayan/?gilayon=30&id=1035 by הרב דוד סיגל speaks about the famous כללים לשימוש רש”י בתרגום which first appeared in print in Yosef Da’at. It mentions that the Hanau edition served as a basis for the text of Rashi in many editions which followed:
בחלק מן החומשים החדשים במהדורת עוז והדר צוין שהכללים האלו נדפסו בחומשים לראשונה באמשטרדם שנת ת”ד (במהדורה שהדפיס רבי מנשה בן ישראל), אבל במהדורות מאוחרות הם תקנו זאת וציינו שהחומשים הראשונים שבהם נעתקו הכללים נדפסו עוד שלושים שנה קודם בהנאו שע”א-שע”ד (הרב ישראל רוזנשטרוך ממכון עוז והדר העיר שיתכן מאוד שמהדורת הנאו זו היא מהדורת הבסיס לפירוש רש”י הנדפס ברוב החומשים עד ימינו, ואכמ”ל). ה
[7] It is not commented on in Mincha Belulah Verona 1594, Minchat Yehuda Lublin 1609, Tzaidah L’Derech Prague 1623, or in Nachalat Yaakov Amsterdam 1642.
[8] Berlin 121 is very different from all the other manuscripts. State Library of Berlin, Berlin, Germany Ms. Or. fol. 121 (13 th -14 th century), skips שַׁבַּ֧ת שַׁבָּת֛וֹן completely.
[9] Aside from the links of Al HaTorah, I accessed these manuscripts through KTIV. None of them had the extra comment in Rashi.
1. Vatican Library, Vatican City, Vatican City State Ms. ebr. 608
2. Rostock University Library, Rostock, Germany Ms. Or. 31
3. The National Library of Russia, St. Petersburg, Russia Ms. EVR I 1
4. University of Toronto Ms FR 5- 005
5. Parma 2523
6. Casanatense Library, Rome, Ms 2848
7. British Library Add. 11566
8. Laurentian Library, Florence Ms. Plut III 08
9. Vatican ebr. 480
10. Vatican ebr. 4
11. Vatican ebr. 94
12. Parma 2865
13. Budapest Kaufmann A 17
14. British Library Or. 9927
9 thoughts on “A Comment of Rashi Found Only in “Defusim Me’Ucharim””
Thank you for all your efforts in writing and publishing this fine article!
Now, I might be missing something. (And if so, my sincere apologies. Please set me straight, I will only appreciate that.) But it seems to me that besides enumerating in very great detail which manuscripts and printed editions include the comment in question, and which do not, it would also be helpful — but arguably even *more* helpful — to discuss the merits of the comment *itself*, and trace it back to earlier Talmudic/Rabbinic sources (if any). Thanks again!
I did look for it but was not able to find a source before Rashi. I was not the only one who was not able to find it. Comment number 4 discusses the origin of Rashi’s comment
https://www.mayim.org.il/?parasha=%D7%A9%D7%91%D7%AA-%D7%A9%D7%91%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%9F#gsc.tab=0
It starts out by writing
רעיון זה שרש”י מביא, לא מצאנו לו מקור קדום יותר (בחז”ל) ואפשר שהוא דרשה של רש”י.
In reply to the earlier comment by E., I checked through some early Mefarshim, and here is what I found.
ABRABANEL on Vayikra, Parshas Emor, writes so:
“והנה יאמר בו שבת שבתון, כמו שנאמר ביום הכפורים ובשאר המועדים נאמר שבתון בלבד, סבתו אצלי, לפי שבמועדים שהמלאכה אסורה בהם, נסתפק הכתוב
לומר בלבד שבתון, שהיא שביתת מלאכה. ולא אמר בהם ‘שבת שבתון’, לפי שמלאכת אוכל נפש מותרת בהם. אבל ביום השבת וביוהכ”פ, שהם אסורים במלאכה וגם כן באוכל נפש, אמר בהם מפני זה שביתה מכופלת שבת שבתון.
The Abarbanel firt appeared in Livorno 1579, and was most probably popular in manuscript before that, as he lived during the 15-16 century. I may assume therefore, that as the Abrabanel himself did not have this RASHI in front of himself and he adds this as own explanation, most probably one of the manuscript owners of an old RASHI placed this comment as supplement for his own use, and then another came and included it inside, and that is the reason it does not appear in the regular manuscripts and editions of RASHI. It is hard to believe that only this single manuscript which included this comment has just plainly dissapeared without leaving any footprints. (B y the way, SIPORNO on the spot also includes a similar comment). SHLOMO E.
Thank you for an interesting article.
2 minor corrections:
“But not in Wilhermsdorf 1713 ווילהרמרשדארף : דפוס יצחק בן יהודה יודלש, despite it being the same printer”.
The printer was not the same, it was Zvi Hirsh b. Chaim
“Abarbanel first appeared in Livorno 1579”, should read Venice 1579
@
The Vilna Gaon in Divrei Eliyahu on Parshas Emor explains the term שבת שבתון in the same way. Clearly, the idea has veracity, whatever the original provenance of the comment.
That is true. But there are those who say that Peirush Rashi was written on a “higher level” so to speak, so it is important to know whether a comment was actually written by Rashi.
Sefer HaShelah. Maseches Shavuot. Perek Ner Mitzvah. Paragraph beginning “והנה יש כת משוגעים האומרים, החילוק מחדד.”
ובפרט דקדוקי רש”י, כי בכל דיבור ודיבור של רש”י יש בו נסתרים עניינים מופלאים, כי חיבר החיבור שלו ברוח הקודש. צאו וראו ברש”י על התורה שהקורא סובר שהוא קל, ראו במזרחי ובכל מפרשי דבריו ותמצאו נפלאות.
Thanks Eli for an intersting article.
Two remarks:
1.I would rather call Roma ca. 1470 Dfus Rishon. Reggio di Calabria would be first dated print.
2.Also the M. Cohen’s Mikraot Gedolot Haketer of Bar Ilan University does not include the addition, without any further comment.
דפ”ס = דפוס ספרד
What a great article!! Clearly my grandfather is a genius!!:)