An Example of Three “Mahadurot” of Rashi
Rashi on Shemot 28:6 and 40:38
“אִם בָּאתִי לְפָרֵשׁ” or “לְפִי שֶפֵרַשְתִי”
An Example of Three “Mahadurot” of Rashi
Eli Genauer
Shemot 40:38 Shemot 28:6
One of the most informative and endearing comments in Rashi can be found in Parshat Tetzaveh. In trying to explain to us the various בגדי כהונה, Rashi makes a preemptive move and describes all of them together so that his readers will be able to make more sense of the total package. He introduces this long explanation with the following words:
אִם בָּאתִי לְפָרֵשׁ מַעֲשֵׂה הָאֵפוֹד וְהַחֹשֶׁן עַל סֵדֶר הַמִּקְרָאוֹת, הֲרֵי פֵּרוּשָׁן פְּרָקִים, וְיִשְׁגֶה הַקּוֹרֵא בְּצֵרוּפָן, לְכָךְ אֲנִי כוֹתֵבמַעֲשֵׂיהֶם כְּמוֹת שֶׁהוּא, לְמַעַן יָרוּץ הַקּוֹרֵא בוֹ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ אֲפָרֵשׁ עַל סֵדֶר הַמִּקְרָאוֹת
If I would come to explain the manufacture of the Ephod and the Choshen in the order of the Pesukim, their explanation would be broken into fragments and the reader would make a mistake in combining them. Therefore, I am writing first of their manufacture as it is, so the reader will be able to run through it quickly and afterwards, I will explain everything according to the order of the Pesukim.
:אִם בָּאתִי לְפָרֵשׁ Rashi is clearly writing this before he explains the Pesukim in order, as he says
.In a standard Chumash it looks like this (Chumash Ateret Rashi available on hebrewbooks.org)
However, for many hundreds of years, whether in manuscript form or printed book, this important explanation of Rashi was situated in different places in the text. Instead of being in Parshas Tetzaveh as above, sometimes it was placed only at the end of Sefer Shemot (with a bit of a difference in the Nusach). Other times it was located both in Parshat Tetzaveh and also at the end of Parshat Pekudei. And finally, sometimes it did not appear at all
Here are various examples of printed books which treat this subject differently
The first printed edition of Rashi was Rome 1470 (It is undated but thought to be 1470) has Rashi’s explanation in Tetzaveh, Shemot 28:6
:and also, at the end of Pekudei, Shemot 40:38
:The introductory comment of Rashi here indicates that it was placed at the end of Pekudei with full knowledge that all the Pesukim had already been explained according to their order
לפי שפרשתי מעשה האפוד והחושן פרקים פרקים
.Since I have already explained the construction of the Choshen and Ephod broken into fragments
This is a Chumash printed in Lisbon in 1491. It too has Rashi’s summary of the בגדי כהונה in Tetzaveh and at the end of Shemot.
This is in Parshat Tetzaveh, Shemot 28:6
This is at the end of Pekudei, Shemot 40:38. As you can see, it is displayed prominently on the page
…Bologna 1482 has it in Tetzaveh
…..but not at the end of Pekudei
Bomberg’s Venice edition of 1518, Sabionetta’s edition of 1557, and Amsterdam’s edition of 1680 (First edition of Siftei Chachamim) have it in both places.
Beginning in the 1700’s, the comment at the end of Pekudei started to disappear. I found this to be true in Amsterdam, Attias 1700, and Amsterdam, Proops 1755. In the 1800’s, the two most copied editions of Mikraot Gedolot, Vienna Netter 1859 and Warsaw 1860, had the comment only in Tetzaveh and that is the way it is presented today.
How did Rashi himself write this comment? A look at some early manuscripts gives us some insight into this question.
The manuscript known as Leipzig 1 is considered to be one of the most reliable Rashi manuscripts. It was copied over by R’ Makhir in the early 14th century who testified that he copied it from a manuscript written by Rav Shemayah, who was Rashi’s secretary
In this manuscript, Rashi’s comment of “אִם בָּאתִי לְפָרֵשׁ” appears in Shemot 28:6 but it has a notation on the side.
The website Al HaTorah.com transcribes the comment which Rabbeinu Makhir wrote in the margin. He states that Rav Shemayah (Rashi’s secretary) did not write down Rashi’s comment on the order of the Ephod until the end of Sefer Shemot, after Parshat Pekudei.
בגיליון כ״י לייפציג 1 כתוב כאן: ״בפירוש שכתב רבנו שמע׳ לא כתב סדר איפוד עד סוף הספר אחר פקודי וכאן דילג עד פי׳ זהב תכלת וגו׳ ואינו ממש מפורש כזה״
How was it recorded in other manuscripts? It was recorded four different ways:
1. It did not appear at all
2. It appeared only at the end of Parshat Pekudei
3. It appeared only in Parshat Tetzaveh
4. It appeared in both places
There are some manuscripts which do not contain the comment in either section (version #1)
This is Hamburg 37(Steinschneider/Hamburg 32). It is missing in Tetzaveh and at the end of Pekudei.
Tetzaveh 28:6
Pekudei 40:38
There are some manuscripts which only have the comment after Parshat Pekudei. (Version #2)
As shown above, Rav Shemayah’s manuscript only had it at the end of Pekudei[2]
There is also Oxford Oppenheim 34 which does not have the comment in Tetzaveh….
and only has it at the end of Pekudei
There are some manuscripts which have it only in Tetzaveh (version #3)
Parma 3081 has it in Tetzaveh…
but not at the end of Shemot…
Paris 157 has it in Tetzaveh
And also at the end of Pekudei:
In my scorecard below, I did not weigh which manuscripts carried more weight than others. It is clear though that since Leipzig 1 was copied over from a manuscript written by Rav Shemayah, and as such is an עד נאמן, gives credence to the fact that a tradition existed which had Rashi’s comment only at the end of Sefer Shemot.
In total, I looked at 65 manuscripts and incunabula. The scorecard was as follows:
Missing completely – Version #1 (Total 15)
Sassoon Ms.369
Hamburg 37 (Steinschneider)/Hamburg 3
Cincinnati 1 (HUC JCF 1) – There is a picture of the Choshen at the end of Shemot
Parma 3204
Berlin 1221
Parma 2868
Berlin 1222
Vatican ebr.608
Berlin 121
British Library Harley 5709 (Margoliouth 170)
British Library Harley 5708 (Margoliouth 171)
Vienna Cod. Hebr. 3 (Schwarz 24)
Vatican ebr. 480
Paris 55
Breslau 11 ( Saraval 5)
[3]After Pekudei only – Version #2 (Total 7)
Munich
Leiden 1
Parma 2708
Oxford Oppenheim 34
Rav Shemayah’s own copy
British Library Harley 1861 (Margoliouth 169)
Paris 48
In Tetzaveh only– Version #3 (Total 22)
Oxford 165
Hamburg 13
Weimar 651
Florence Plut. III. 03
Vatican ebr. 46
Paris 155
Vatican ebr.4
Parma 3081
Vatican ebr. 55
Parma 3256
Vatican ebr. 33
Vatican Urbinati 8
Paris 156
Vatican ebr. 18
Rostock 31
Vienna Cod. Hebr. 220 (Schwarz 23)
Harley MS 5655
Frankfurt 152
Paris 158
Bologna 1482
Soncino 1487
Ixar 1490
In both places – Version #4 (21 total)
London 26917
Berlin Qu 514
Vatican Urbanati 1
Parma 2989
Paris 157
Parma 3115
Vatican ebr. 94 (Different handwriting for Pekudei)
Paris 159
London 19653
Parma 2979
Frankfurt 19
Breslau 102 (Saraval 12)
Parma 2707
Casanatense 2921
Jerusalem Ms. Heb. 2009-38
Rome 1470
Reggio di Calabria 1475
Alkabetz/Guadalajara 1476
Zamora 1487/92
Lisbon 1491
Napoli 1492
Conclusion:
One gets the impression that there were different “traditions” in how this Rashi was recorded. Professor Yosef Ofer writes that initially the passage of “אִם בָּאתִי לְפָרֵשׁ” was not included in Rashi’s commentary.[4] Rashi then decided to include it as a review at the end of Pekudai. Finally, he placed it in Parshat Tetzaveh with some changes in the wording.[5][6] The manuscripts which had it in both places most likely were copied from multiple manuscripts.
[1] Please see https://alhatorah.org/Commentators:Rashi_Leipzig_1/1/en
[2] In my scorecard below, I did not weigh which manuscripts carried more weight than others. It is clear though that since Leipzig 1 was copied over from a manuscript written by Rav Shemayah, and as such is an עד נאמן, gives credence to the fact that a tradition existed which had Rashi’s comment only at the end of Sefer Shemot.
[3] See footnote 2.
[4] The website Al HaTorah directs you to an article written by professor Yosef Ofer in a publication called Megadim ועיינו בהרחבה במאמרו של י‘ עופר, “שינויים וחזרות של רש“י בפירושו לתורה“, מגדים כ‘ (תשנ“ג): 83–86.
[5] Professor Ofer writes:
[6] The Artscroll Elucidated Rashi on Chumash, Shemos, Volume II, Sifsei Yesheinim p. 558, (Rahway, NJ 2025) reaches a similar conclusion.
6 thoughts on “An Example of Three “Mahadurot” of Rashi”
Ironically, the paragraph beginning with “In my scorecard below…”, appears both at the beginning of the scorecard, and in a footnote at the end of the article.
As boys in cheder the rebbes were busy with the second part of rashi where rashi mentions the ladies who are horse riding wearing aprons how comes the holy rashi should know such a thing shikzahs riding horses the answer was that the holy rashi saw by mistake such a thing and wondered how comes such a mistake came to him and the same time he had to explain the אפוד So the holy rashi put two and two together and he had a explanation for the אפוד that’s how our rebbes explained the rashi I wonder if such a explanation is given in the USA to the school boys and girls
Because Rashi, like pretty much every gadol before ten minutes ago, lived in the world.
I don’t know; my rebbeim didn’t worry about such things. Rashi knew what women (I assume also Jewish ones) wore when they rode horses; what’s the problem?
I’ve seen such a thing, but from Israelis and/or Chassidim. I never heard this when I was in school.
To me, the whole notion makes no sense at all. Even if such an incident happened, and that was the only way Rashi knew about what these women were wearing, then what would be the point of putting it in his commentary? He couldn’t assume that every reader of his commentary had similarly had the same chance encounter. From the fact that Rashi included this description in his commentary, one can deduce that Rashi took for granted that his readership was mostly familiar with how female noblewomen dressed when horseback riding.
This is a well-known legend/story. The point is to to explain the ליבי אומר לי expression used by Rashi. The idea is not so much that he saw the royal woman “by mistake”, but that Providence arranged for her to come in to his sight, so as to enable Rashi to better understand the Ephod.
(Not to ignore the real point of the post. Nice work Eli, I enjoyed.)
I recall hearing this point made similarly in my yeshiva days – that hashgacha brought about rashi seeing and knowing about riding aprons in order that he/we should understand the efod. I don’t recall the part about not looking at women. I guess we can say נהירא נהירא ופשטיה, each derech has its own clarifications in the peshat, so that we have פשטות המתחדשים בכל יום.