Notes on RASHI, ArtScroll Censorship, and Emendation of Rabbinic Texts

Notes on RASHI, ArtScroll Censorship, and Emendation of Rabbinic Texts
By David Shasha
A new post on the Seforim blog by Professor Marc Shapiro discusses the problem of ArtScroll publishers and the way that it routinely censors rabbinical texts:
http://seforim.blogspot.com/2015/06/more-about-rashbam-on-genesis-chapter-1.html
Shapiro looks at the issue of RASHBAM’s commentary to Genesis 1, a big problem for Orthodox literalists.
Here is a post from Failed Messiah that explains the difficulty:
http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2014/12/haredi-publisher-artscroll-censors-bible-commentary-of-leading-medieval-rabbi-678.html
RASHBAM is the grandson of RASHI and the brother of Rabbenu Tam; a central figure in one of the most illustrious of all the rabbinical dynasties in the Ashkenazi tradition.
RASHBAM’s comment to Genesis 1 asserts that, according to the literal meaning of the text, the day, contrary to Jewish law, begins in the morning and not the evening.
I will leave the legal controversy to Shapiro and others, but would like to discuss his point on textual emendation.
It is interesting to see the plethora of Ashkenazi figures that Shapiro cites, including Rabbenu Tam and Abraham ben David (RABAD) to support the idea that no texts should be emended based on personal opinion.
The problem with this formulation is that the principle of textual emendation was most emphatically adopted by RASHI, the most important figure in the Ashkenazi rabbinical tradition.
Jose Faur in his classic article “The Legal Thinking of the Tosafot” discusses the matter in some detail:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/Davidshasha/sxn6wDNrvX0
He notes the freedom Ashkenazi rabbis accorded themselves to emend texts:
The Franco-German school had a liberal attitude toward the text of the Talmud, It is well known that this school felt free to amend, interpolate and delete from the text of the Talmud.
Referencing the classical Ashkenazi source Sefer ha-Yashar and academic discussions by Joseph Weiss and Benjamin Lewin, Faur explains that RASHI’s famous “Hachi Garsinan” – the code term for his many emendations of Talmudic texts – was a central part of the Ashkenazi rabbinical heritage:
The liberal attitude toward the text is reflected in the Franco-German position that the Talmudic text was not put into writing until post-talmudic times, late in the Middle Ages. Accordingly, the Talmudic text was never authoritatively fixed. Since there was no authoritative transmission of the text, it was subject to further development and errors.
We have seen this principle dangerously expanded in the current school of academic Talmud studies which holds that the Talmud was not completed until the late Geonic period, when the bulk of what is called the STAM (anonymous) layer of the corpus was written; contrary to the traditional formulation found in the canonical Epistle of Sherira Ga’on.
For more on the current scholarly revolution against the normative Jewish tradition, led by David Weiss-Halivni, see the following books:
The Formation of the Babylonian Talmud by David Weiss-Halivni
Tradition and the Formation of the Talmud by Moulie Vidas
The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature
Without any actual documentary or historical evidence, the revisionist scholarship – similar to German Higher Criticism of the Hebrew Bible – demands that we see different historical strata in the Babylonian Talmud.  This would undermine its literary unity and its historical presentation of the classical rabbinic tradition as formulated in the academies of Sura and Pumbedita.
The new scholarship claims that the text is a frightful hodge-podge of confused materials that is often sloppily and incoherently edited.  Texts are ignorantly assembled by anonymous rabbis who lack a historical connection to their predecessors.  It is all a fabrication lacking the firm authority of tradition.
The close of the Talmudic canon, as formulated by Sherira Ga’on in his famous Epistle, is in the 6th century:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud#Talmud_Bavli
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherira_Gaon#His_Responsa
Jose Faur has written an excellent treatment of the matter in his “Textuality in the Rabbinic Tradition,” chapter 4 of his book Golden Doves with Silver Dots, which is an important corrective to this benighted revisionism:
http://www.amazon.com/Golden-Doves-Silver-Dots-Textuality/dp/0253326001/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1433886554&sr=1-6&keywords=jose+faur
A good deal of the current scholarship attacking the Geonic tradition and its dating of the Talmudic corpus seeks to aggressively negate Faur’s assertions about the Oral Law and its textual manifestations. The written form of the Talmud and the tradition of emendation by Ashkenazi rabbis, and now academic scholars, has thus become part of a larger problem of the authority of the Oral Law in contemporary Judaism. Shapiro claims that the Ashkenazi rabbis, and their Sephardic followers like Moses Nahmanides, were firmly against this method of emendation, even though the leader of their school, RASHI, was a strong proponent of it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud#Textual_emendations
The following discussion by Jacob Neusner reviews the salient points involved the matter of RASHI and the Tosafist School:
https://books.google.com/books?id=hjYoYNoL4LQC&pg=PA84&lpg=PA84&dq=rashi+emendations+of+talmudic+texts&source=bl&ots=evDZj1fNS8&sig=unRnLJrXnltLs_p2BtzcSL_fXnk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=E-R2Vd3kI8vfsAWO24PQAg&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=rashi%20emendations%20of%20talmudic%20texts&f=false
Neusner claims that RASHI emended the Talmudic text over 2,300 times based on his own personal opinion!
It is interesting to note both the parallels and differences between the emendation process in the older Ashkenazi tradition and the way it is now being deployed by Ultra-Orthodox fundamentalists like ArtScroll.  The idea of censorship has become a very modern way of dealing with inconvenient historical details.  So while the substantive elements of RASHI and ArtScroll are indeed quite different it should be noted that the role of PILPUL and “Da’as Torah,” the imposition of personal opinions and values on Jewish texts, remain a central part of Ashkenazi rabbinic authoritarianism and its modern academic offshoots.
The historical dialectic is quite striking.
In addition to the emendation process during the early Middle Ages in Germany and France, the Ashkenazi tradition as embodied in the PILPUL methodology of Rabbenu Tam and the Tosafists developed the “Davqa/Lav Davqa” method of analysis which would interpret texts in a relativistic manner.  Some texts were, Davqa, to be interpreted as written, others, Lav Davqa, were not to be interpreted as written.
Again, it is Jose Faur who has been best able to decode this casuistic methodology, finding a connection with the hermeneutics of Peter Abelard and his Scholastic apologetics:
The Tosafot, occasionally, prefaced their analysis of the Talmud by declaring that the sense of the text is lav davqa (not exact). The lav davqa methodology revolutionized the study of the Talmud and changed the content of Jewish law. This methodology is grounded on the assumption that the rabbinic texts may be interpreted not in accordance to their usual sense. The methodology, as well as the philosophy of language that it projected, was brilliantly formulated by Abelard. Abelard, in his attempt to reconcile the conflicting views found in the writings of the Church Fathers, formulated the semantic principles that the same word may be differently used by different writers.
Here is how Faur sums up the matter:
It is intellectually acceptable to describe things not in accordance to what they really are.
This explication ties together the various anti-rational strains that are inherent to the Ashkenazi rabbinical tradition and its modern exponents.
In the end it affirms the absolute power of the interpreter over the text, the rabbi over the Law. It removes agency from the community and dangerously invests absolute power in the rabbinical class.
It is therefore quite interesting to read Shapiro’s attack on ArtScroll which does not at all reference the history of RASHI’s emendations, the PILPUL method of the Tosafot, or the shocking revisionism of contemporary Judaic scholars which has essentially sought to eviscerate the historical integrity of the Talmudic tradition.


More About Rashbam on Genesis Chapter 1 and Further Comments about ArtScroll

More About Rashbam on Genesis Chapter 1 and Further Comments about ArtScroll
By Marc B. Shapiro
I had thought that I was done with ArtScroll’s censorship of Rashbam to Genesis chapter 1, but a number of people wanted some explanation about the manuscript of Rashbam’s commentary. This will also give me the opportunity to add some more comments about this distressing episode.[1]
In my prior post on the topic, available here, I referred to Rabbenu Tam’s strong words against those who “corrected” the talmudic text based on their understanding. ArtScroll is guilty of violating Rabbenu Tam’s “command”, as he would certainly also apply his words to later generations tampering with the writings of rishonim. I think everyone can understand that if people were simply allowed to emend or delete texts based on their own understanding, not a single talmudic tractate or medieval work would emerge unscathed. As such, the only honest thing for an editor to do is to point out in a note how he feels the text should read, or if he thinks that a passage should be deleted. Unfortunately, ArtScroll did not choose this to follow this honest, and common sense, approach.
It is not just Rabbenu Tam who dealt with this matter. Nahmanides, in commentary to Bava Batra 134a, blasts those “sinners” those who emend texts based on their own understanding.
וזו עבירה גמורה ולייטי עלה רבנן כל מאן דמגיה ספרים מדעתא דנפשיה
R. Abraham ben David (Rabad) also leaves no doubt as to his position, stating that one who deletes a text based on his understanding, “his hand should be cut off, since one who deletes [sections of] books is like those who burn the Torah.”[2]
ויד המוחקת תיקצץ שמוחק הספרים כשורפי התורה
Following my posts R. Yitzchak Zilber published two pieces in Hebrew.

With regard to ArtScroll, the two pieces don’t really contain anything not mentioned already on this blog, but for those who don’t read English they are valuable. It is also good to see a noted talmid hakham express his feelings about what he terms ArtScroll’s “stupid act”. (I understand why documents like the ones published by Zilber, which are directed towards a certain population, cannot cite the Seforim Blog. Yet it is noteworthy that Uriel Simon’s book אזן מלין תבחן is cited, even if the author’s name is not mentioned). One significant point made by Zilber is his claim that ArtScroll knows the truth, namely, that the passages it chose to censor are not heretical insertions, but it chose to censor them anyway.
I have received emails that make the same point, that the censorship is all about “business”. In other words, the haredi world today does not want to see Rashbam’s peshat understanding of when the day begins, so the censorship is necessary in order for ArtScroll’s mikraot gedolot Chumash to sell. Based on what I have been told by people supposedly in the know, I am inclined to believe this. This is also an appealing explanation as it is much easier to accept than that anyone at ArtScroll really believes in the justification for its censorship that was sent out and which I discussed in the earlier post.
In my post I referred to additional authorities, other than Rashbam, who understood that according to the peshat the first chapter of Genesis teaches that the day begins in the morning.[3] I also mentioned those who believe that this was how things were before the giving of the Torah. R. Moshe Maimon called my attention to the fact that R. Saadiah Gaon also apparently held this view.[4] Here is R. Kafih’s edition of R. Saadiah, Perushei Rabbenu Sa’adiah Gaon al ha-Torah, p. 71. Look at chapter 10, note 4.

R. Ovadiah Yosef cites a number of additional sources that mention the notion that before the giving of the Torah night came after day.[5] One of these is R. Moses Sofer,[6] who not surprisingly quotes his teacher, R. Pinhas Horowitz, whose view on this matter I referred to in the prior post.[7] R. Meir Mazuz[8] notes that R. Reuven Margaliyot says the same thing.[9]
A number of people commented on how ironic it is that Ibn Ezra is being used as a source to determine what is heretical, being that his views on Mosaic authorship are themselves regarded by heretical by ArtScroll.[10] Furthermore, Ibn Ezra has no reticence in citing Karaite interpreters, yet as we know, ArtScroll only cites “accepted” authorities, and won’t even mention the Soncino commentary by name. Incidentally, there are some times when ArtScroll errs in this matter. For example, in its commentary to Jonah, p. 111, it cites “Yefes ben Ali” (who is quoted by Ibn Ezra). Presumably, the ArtScroll editor assumed that he was a rishon.[11] In truth, he was a Karaite, and his inclusion in the Jonah commentary is diametrically opposed to the standard set up by ArtScroll with regard to which commentators they will cite, a standard that opposes the Ibn Ezra-Maimonides approach (adopted by Soncino) of “accept the truth from whomever said it”.[12]
When it comes to Karaite influence on Ibn Ezra, R. Joseph Delmedigo goes so far as to say that most[!] of Ibn Ezra’s explanations come from the Karaites. Reflecting the fact that Ibn Ezra does sometimes strongly reject the Karaite interpretations, Delmedigo states that Ibn Ezra is like a baby who nurses from his mother [i.e., the Karaites] but sometimes also bites her breast.[13]
ודע כי בספרי הקראים תמצא באור לדברי הר”א”ב”ע[!] כי רוב באוריו מקדמוניהם כגון הר”ר ישועה והר”ר יפת והר”ר יהודה הפרסי דולה מושך גם כי לפעמים כיונק שדי אמו נושך
Philip Birnbaum writes:
Ibn Ezra cites Yefet more frequently than any other exegete. In his commentary on the Minor Prophets, Ibn Ezra quotes Yefet forty-four times whereas he mentions Sa’adyah Gaon only five times. . . . Ibn Ezra borrows from Yefet much more than he acknowledges.[14]
This connection of Ibn Ezra to Yefet even led to the creation of a false legend that Ibn Ezra was a student of Yefet.[15]
While Ibn Ezra often adopts the interpretations of Karaite commentators, he also blasts them when necessary. One such example is in his commentary to Deuteronomy 12:17 where he writes: “The heretics [Karaites] say that there are two sorts of first-born. One is the first to break out of its mother’s womb. The second is the first-born of the flock. There is no need to respond to their nonsense.”[16] It is noteworthy that the “nonsense” interpretation that Ibn Ezra refers to is indeed found in a few rishonim including Hizkuni and R. Jacob of Vienna.[17]
Let us now turn to the manuscript of Rashbam. The first thing to mention is that there is only one surviving manuscript page for Rashbam’s commentary to the beginning of Genesis. There used to be another manuscript that contained his commentary to the rest of the Torah but was missing the commentary to Genesis chapters 1-17. Unfortunately, this manuscript was lost during World War II. For such a great figure as Rashbam, it is definitely noteworthy that so few physical specimens of his Torah commentary survived until modern times.[18] What this tells us is that not many scribes were interested in copying the commentary, and I do not know why this was the case. In fact, it is not merely his commentary on the Torah that suffered this fate. While we have Rashbam’s commentaries to most of Bava Batra and the tenth chapter of Pesahim, we know that he also wrote commentaries to most of the other tractates, yet these are lost.[19] Is there any way to explain this?
Here is the manuscript of Rashbam to the beginning of Genesis.

 

It is found in the Bavarian Staatsbibliothek (Munich) and is referred to as Hebrew Manuscript no. 5 (2). Here is the link.
You can examine the entire manuscript here.
This manuscript of Rashbam is bound together with another manuscript from 1233 that contains the earliest example we have of Rashi’s commentary on the Torah. It is also the first illuminated Ashkenazic manuscript (with the illumination by a non-Jewish artist).[20] The copyist of the Rashi manuscript was not some anonymous person, but R. Solomon ben Samuel of Würzberg. R. Solomon was an outstanding student of R. Samuel he-Hasid and a colleague of R. Judah he-Hasid. He was also a student of R. Yehiel of Paris, and R. Solomon’s son was one of the participants in the 1240 Paris Disputation together with R. Yehiel. R. Solomon wrote Torah works of his own and he may be identical with R. Solomon ben Samuel, the author of the piyyut ישמיענו סלחתי that is recited in Yom Kippur Neilah.[21] ArtScroll, in its Yom Kippur Machzor, p. 746, tells us that ישמיענו סלחתי was written by “R’ Shlomo ben Shmuel of the thirteenth-century.”[22]
It is significant that in this early copy of Rashi’s commentary, whose copyist was himself a Torah great, Rashi’s comment to Genesis 18:22 appears in its entirety.[23] In this comment, Rashi refers to one of the tikun soferim and states that the Sages “reversed” the passage. What this means is that Rashi understood tikun soferim literally. Some have claimed that Rashi could never have said this, and it must be a heretical insertion. (There is always someone who says this about texts that depart from the conventional view.) In line with this approach, ArtScroll deleted this comment of Rashi.[24] As we have seen with the passages of Rashbam that were censored, in this case as well ArtScroll would also no doubt claim that it accepts the view of those who do not regard the deleted comment as authentic. Yet how can such a claim be taken seriously when the earliest manuscript of Rashi’s commentary, dating from the early thirteenth century and copied by R. Solomon ben Samuel, contains the passage?
Returning to Rashbam, I have the following question. Just like there is only one manuscript for his commentary to Genesis chapter 1, for the rest of the commentary on the Torah there was also only one manuscript and we don’t know anything about the copyist. Why don’t ArtScroll and the other censors start deleting the many other “problematic” passages in Rashbam, with the excuse that they are heretical insertions? Why only focus on the commentary to Genesis chapter 1?
I must also note that Rashbam himself, in his introductory words to parashat Mishpatim, refers to his commentary at the beginning of Genesis. Rashbam explains that the point of his commentary is not to explain the halakhah but rather the peshat, “as I have explained in Bereishit.” Where does he explain this in his commentary to Genesis? As Rosin points out in his note, Rashbam discusses this matter at the beginning of his commentary to parashat Va-Yeshev, and also at the beginning of his commentary to parashat Bereshit (which is from the supposedly questionable manuscript).
In my opinion, there is no doubt that in parashat Mishpatim Rashbam had the commentary to parashat Bereishit in mind. You can see this by comparing his words. In his commentary to parashat Mishpatim he writes:
ידעו ויבינו יודעי שכל כי לא באתי לפרש הלכות אע”פ שהם עיקר כמו שפירשתי בבראשית כי מיתור המקראות נשמעין ההגדות וההלכות.
At the beginning of parashat Bereishit he writes:
ועיקר ההלכות והדרשות יוצאין מיתור המקראות
Please look at what I have underlined and compare it to the passage I cited from the commentary to parashat Bereshit.
There are a number of other parallels between what Rashbam states in his commentary to Genesis chapter 1 and what appears elsewhere in his Torah commentary, meaning that it is impossible for one to argue that the commentary on the first chapter of Genesis is of uncertain authorship.[25]
I must also mention that Hizkuni, in his commentary to Genesis chapter 1, incorporates a number of Rashbam’s comments (without mentioning him by name). A list of these was compiled by  אריסמנדי on the Otzar ha-Hokhmah forum. [26] He concludes:
יש לנו להצטער ולמחות על כי שלטו ידי זרים בחיבורי הראשונים, ולתבוע מההוצאות השונות שידפיסו את פירוש רשב”ם בשלמות האפשרית, ואל יהינו לשלוח יד בו. וכשם שלא יעלה על דעת מאן דהוא לצנזר מפירוש ראב”ע את הקטעים שיצאו עליהם מתנגדים, וכיו”ב במשנה תורה להרמב”ם ושאר חיבורי רבותינו ז”ל. הכי לצנזורים הערלים והמשומדים יאמרו להידמות?
In all the correspondence I have had about this matter, which includes people in various haredi communities, no one has disagreed with this last paragraph. In other words, no one has expressed any support for ArtScroll’s censorship of Rashbam, and the reason is obvious. This is not a matter of ideological or scholarly disagreement. It has nothing to do with haredi vs. Religious Zionist. It is about basic scholarly integrity as well as respect for Rashbam and his readers. This is something scholars of all persuasions can agree on.
One final point regarding Rashbam: In my post here I referred to Rashbam’s famous words in his commentary to Gen. 37:2 that he heard from his grandfather that if he had time he would write new commentaries focused on the peshat. Later in his commentary to this verse, he cites an explanation which appears in Rashi (without mentioning him by name) and refers to this explanation as הבל הוא. In a recent article,[27] R. Meir Mazuz refers to this comment and notes that it is not merely Rashbam who, when it came to Torah matters, was not afraid to strongly reject his grandfather’s position. Rashbam’s brother, Rabbenu Tam, also had this approach.
הלא זה האיש שפסל כל התפלין של חכמי דורו (ובכללם של מר זקנו זצ”ל רבן של ישראל) ועשה אותם כקרקפתא דלא מנח תפלין ח”ו . . . וכן פסק ר”ת שכל המאכיל אונה סרוכה באומא מאכיל טריפות לישראל (תוס’ חולין דף מ”ז ע”א) בניגוד לדעת רש”י שמתיר (שם דף מ”ו סע”ב). וכן חידש לברך על תש”ר על מצות תפלין, בניגוד לרש”י והרי”ף והרמב”ם.
This will be my last post dealing with ArtScroll and Rashbam unless new information comes to light. I have made my position very clear and there is no need to go over this matter again and again. The important thing is that people not forget that ArtScroll’s new mikraot gedolot Chumash is a censored work.
By now no one is surprised that ArtScroll engages in censorship. This has been their modus operandi from the beginning. But is there more, that is, does ArtScroll also publish things that it knows are incorrect? This is a more difficult question to answer. In Changing the Immutable, p. 41, I cite an example where I am pretty sure that this is the case, since the alternative would be to assume ignorance of a pretty basic fact of which I am certain the learned folks at ArtScroll are well aware. Yet aside from a few such cases, which relate to Jewish-Gentile relations, I don’t know of any evidence that ArtScroll intentionally misinterprets sources. Contrary to what some others think, I assume that if there is a misinterpretation it is simply an error, which all people are liable to make. I admit, however, that I am not sure what to make of the following example (called to my attention by R. Yonason Rosman).
The following is ArtScroll’s commentary to Deut. 29:9, in which it quotes Or ha-Hayyim:
Moses divided the people into categories to suggest that everyone is responsible according to how many others he or she can influence. Leaders may be able to affect masses of people; women, their immediate families and neighbors; children, only a few friends and classmates; common laborers, hardly anyone. God does not demand more than is possible, but He is not satisfied with less (Or HaChaim).
This is a very nice thought, but does Or ha-Hayyim actually say this? Here is Or ha-Hayyim on the verse.
As you can see, Or ha-Hayyim does not say that everyone is responsible according to how many he or she can influence. He specifically states that children are not responsible for others since אינם בני דעה. He then adds that women are like children in this respect (i.e., not responsible for others; he is not including them as אינם בני דעה).[28] Thus, ArtScroll’s presentation of Or ha-Hayyim’s view with regard to children and women is actually the exact opposite of what he really says. Was this an intentional distortion in the name of political correctness or a simple misunderstanding? Does ArtScroll view itself, in darshanut-like fashion, as able to elaborate on and alter the message of the commentaries it quotes, so that when it indicates that an interpretation comes from Or ha-Hayyim (or any other source) it could also mean “based on Or ha-Hayyim”? If the latter is true, one must wonder why there is no indication of this in the preface to the Stone Chumash.
To be continued
* * * *
By now many people have read my new book and I have received lots of comments and additional sources. I will discuss some of them in future posts.Although I read the book over a number of times before publication and sat shiv’ah neki’im over every sentence, I knew that there would be some errors that got through. I have learnt that absolute perfection is simply unattainable. However, we are fortunate today that errors can be quickly corrected and the corrections publicized very widely through this blog. Those who have the book can simply insert the corrections. When the book is reprinted the corrections will be added as well.

P. 17. I refer to R. Eliezer David Gruenwald. This should be R. Judah Gruenwald (1845-1920). Thanks to Yisroel Rottenberg for catching this mistake.
P. 21. I discuss the concept of halakhah ve-ein morin ken. Shortly before the book went to press, I added a comment to note 74 in which I stated that Mishnah Berakhot 1:1 contains an example where the Sages did not reveal the true halakhah in order to keep people from transgression. This is a mistake and I thank R. Yonason Rosman for the correction. The Sages made a decree to keep people from transgression. Once this was done we are dealing with a actual rabbinic law so it has no connection to halakhah ve-ein morin ken. Furthermore, since it was a rabbinic decree binding on all there is no reason to think that the Sages were concerned that the masses not know that the biblical law allowed for more flexibility. (We do find such a concern in more recent rabbinic literature, as I discuss in the book.)
P. 55. I refer to an article by Jacob J. Schacter on the 93 Beth Jacob girls. I know this article well and I can’t explain how it is that I recorded the co-author of the article as Norma Baumel Joseph. The co-author is actually Judith Tydor Baumel.P. 205 n. 71. I refer to Teherani, Amudei Mishpat, vol. 1, pp. 147ff. This is the second pagination in the volume.

P. 225. I wrote that R. Naftali Zvi Judah Berlin stated that R. Shneur Zalman of Lyady’s arguments were only intended to intimidate the scholarly reader. R. Yonason Rosman pointed out that my language here is not precise. What the Netziv says is not that R. Shneur Zalman’s arguments were intended to intimidate the scholarly reader, but rather his statement that he has many arguments was for intimidation.
P. 259 n. 100 refers to volume 14 of R. Wosner’s Shevet ha-Levi. This should be volume 11.And while we are talking about typos, this is a good opportunity to correct an unfortunate error that appeared in the first printing of Studies in Maimonides and His Interpreters, p. 152, right at the end. The first word from the verse from Hosea that I quote is מחמד, not מחמר. If this mistake is found in your copy of the book, please correct it.

_______________

[1] In my post here I mentioned that the Lubavitcher Rebbe referred to Rashbam’s peshat interpretation that the day begins in the morning, the interpretation that was censored by ArtScroll. My reference was to a talk the Rebbe gave, and R. Avrohom Bergstein and others called my attention to the fact that in a letter the Rebbe also referred to this peshat interpretation of Rashbam. See Iggerot Kodesh, vol. 24, no. 934, also found in Likutei Sihot, vol. 15, p. 493.
[2] This passage is quoted from the manuscript by R. Menahem Lonzano. See Jordan S. Penkower, Masorah and Text Criticism in the Early Modern Mediterranean (Jerusalem, 2014), p. 118. Lonzano also refers to Nahmanides’ comment that I quoted.
[3] In this listing I included R. Ezekiel Landau. A Lakewood scholar properly corrected me as R. Landau is only referring to the fact that when it comes to kodashim night goes after day.
[4] R. Moshe Maimon also called my attention to the following: In my post here I discussed R. Dovid Cohen’s book, Ha-Emunah ha-Ne’emanah (Brooklyn, 2012). Among other things, I wrote:
One more point about R. Cohen’s book is that it is obvious that at times he is responding to what I wrote in The Limits of Orthodox Theology (and he also makes use of many of the sources I cite). While I am not mentioned by name (no surprise there) I am apparently included among the משמאילים referred to on p. 5 (see Limits, pp. 7-8).
R. Cohen has recently published the seventh volume of his book of questions, Ve-Im Tomar. Look at page 14, no. 216.

 

Now look at the source for this question provided by R. Cohen.
The question R. Cohen refers to comes from Limits, p. 7 (although I ask why Maimonides does not mention anything about teaching a prospective convert the Thirteen Principles. I don’t ask this question about talmudic sages.). Although I was not mentioned by name in Ha-Emunah ha-Ne’emanah, I am certainly honored to be cited in Ve-Im Tomar.

Since I mention R. Cohen, here is a page from his Ohel David, vol. 3, p. 36.

In his commentary to 1 Kings 7:23 he quotes the verse as follows:

ויעש את הים מוצק עשר באמה משפתו על שפתו
The words I have underlined caught my eye because the verse actually states משפתו עד שפתו. I assume that what appears in R. Cohen’s book is a typo as I haven’t seen any editions of Tanach that contain this error. However, this verse is also part of the Sephardic Haftarah for parashat Va-Yakhel, and believe it or not there are chumashim that do make this mistake. Here, for example, is a page from a popular tikkun kor’im. Look at the last words on the page and you will see the mistaken text.

[5] See She’elot u-Teshuvot Hazon Ovadiah, vol. 1, p. 5.
[6] See Torat Moshe, vol. 3, p. 18b and Derashot Hatam Sofer, vol. 2, p. 231b.
[7] It has already been pointed out that while the yeshiva pronuncation of R. Horowitz’s book המקנה is Ha-Makneh, from Jeremiah ch. 32 we see that it should really be pronounced Ha-Miknah. R. Horowitz’s most famous work is הפלאה. This is an abbreviation of הקטן פינחס הלוי איש הורויץ. The spelling I have given of R. Horowitz’s last name is how he himself spelled it. Here is the title page of his Sefer Ketubah, the first part of his Hafla’ah, published in 1787.

[8] Or Torah, Sivan 5775, p. 945.
[9] Nitzotzei Or, Berakhot 4a.
[10] It is also ironic that in R. Moshe Feinstein’s condemnation of the publication of the commentary of R. Judah he-Hasid, he cites Ibn Ezra’s attack on Yitzhaki for the latter’s own “biblical criticism.” See Iggerot Moshe, Yoreh Deah, vol. 3, no. 114.
[11] This example was earlier noted by B. Barry Levy, “Our Torah, Your Torah and Their Torah: An Evaluation of the Artscroll Phenomenon,” in Howard Joseph, et al., eds., Truth and Compassion: Essays in Judaism and religion in Memory of Rabbi Dr. Solomon Frank (Waterloo, Canada, 1983),  p. 147.
[12] I was quite surprised to find that R. Moses Teitelbaum, Yismah Moshe: Shemot, p. 177b, comes off sounding just like Soncino rather than ArtScroll, in defending citation of Karaite interpreters.
הנה אנכי שולח מלאך ע’ באברבנאל שכתב בשם חכמי הקראים כי זה נאמר על יהושע, והנה האומר דבר חכמה אף באוה”ע חכם נקרא, ובאמת שהם גרועים כי הם מינים ואפיקרוסים, מ”מ את הטוב נקבל כי כמה מפרשים הלכו בדרך הזה שהנביא נקרא מלאך
Regarding the Karaites, even though they are to be viewed as heretics, and a Sefer Torah written by a min is to be burnt, R. David Ibn Zimra stated that if one of the Karaites writes a Sefer Torah it is not to be burnt.  Rather, it is to be placed in genizah. The reason for this is that the Karaites believe in the written Torah. See She’elot u-Teshuvot ha-Radbaz, vol. 2, no. 774.
R. Ishtori ha-Parchi, Kaftor va-Ferah, ch. 5 (pp. 76-77 in the Beit ha-Midrash le-Halakhah be-Hityashvut edition) thinks that such a Sefer Torah does not need to be put away, even though one cannot publicly read from it since the letters of God’s name were not written with the proper intention and other rabbinic requirements were not fulfilled. But the Sefer Torah is not pasul simply because of who wrote it. He also mentions the beautiful Bibles produced by Karaites in the Land of Israel. (When he says “Sadducee” he means Karaite.)
מזה נראה שהצדוקי אם כתב ספר תורה שלא יהיה פסול ואע”פ שיקרא מין אינו ממין זה המין שעובד ע”ז . . . והנה תמצא עמנו היום בארץ הצבי הרבה צדוקים סופרים והרבה ספרים נאים מכתיבתם בתורה נביאים וכתובים. ועל ספר תורה מסתברא שבמה שאינו ניכר שאין ראוי לסמוך עליהם כבעבוד לשמה וכתיבת אזכרות לשמן ותפירת היריעות בגידי טהורה.
See R. Yitzhak Ratsaby, ed., Shemot Kodesh ve-Hol (Bnei Brak, 1987), pp. 5-6. See also the important comments of R. David Zvi Rotstein, “Sefer Torah Menukad,” in Ohel Sarah-Leah (Jerusalem, 1999), pp. 673ff. (Rotstein thinks that when Masekhet Soferim refers to “Sadducees” it too means Karaites.)
R. Naftali Zvi Judah Berlin, Meshiv Davar, vol. 2, no. 77, states that it is permissible to write a Sefer Torah for Karaites if they will treat it with respect. For more discussion regarding this matter, see R. Hayyim Hezekiah Medini, Sedei Hemed, vol. 9, Divrei Hakhamim no. 135.
[13] See his letter published in Abraham Geiger, Melo Chofnajim (Berlin, 1840), p. 20 (Hebrew section). See also שפ”ר in Ha-Magid, Sep. 7, 1864, p. 279, arguing that this letter was not written by Delmedigo.
[14]  The Arabic Commentary of Yefet Ben ‘Ali the Karaite on the Book of Hosea (Philadelphia, 1942), pp. xliii-xliv. See Michael Wechsler, The Arabic Translation and Commentary of Yefet ben ‘Eli the Karaite on the Book of Esther (Leiden, 2008), p. 72, who characterizes Ibn Ezra as “the greatest single mediator of Yefet’s exegesis (and hence of Karaite exegesis generally) among the Rabbanites.”
[15] See Avraham Lipshitz, Pirkei Iyun be-Mishnat ha-Rav Avraham Ibn Ezra (Jerusalem, 1982), p. 192.
[16] I have used the translation of H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver.
[17] See R. Kasher, Torah Shelemah, vol. 12, pp. 192-193. R. Kasher writes:
ויש להתפלא איך שיטה זו נכנסה גם לפירושי הראשונים ולא ידעו שיסודה ממקור זר
At first I wondered why R. Kasher thought that the origin of this interpretation is with the Karaites. Why not posit that a Rabbanite peshat interpeter could independently arrive at the same conclusion as that offered by the Karaites? I later found that R. Kasher himself, Torah Shelemah vol. 17, p. 311, offers this exact same approach:
 וצ”ל שכתבו כן בדרך פירוש בפשטא דקרא
Daniel Sperber, Minhagei Yisrael, vol. 1, p. 151 n. 8, assumes that the interpretation indeed originates with the Karaites. Regarding the Karaite understanding, see Torah Shelemah, vol. 27, p. 210. See also my post here where I refer to R. Moshe Feinstein’s attack on a “heretical” interpretation that is also found in a number of rishonim.
[18] Additional pieces from Rashbam were published by Moshe Sokolow, “Ha-Peshatot ha-Mithadshim”: Ketaim Hadashim mi-Perush ha-Torah le-Rashbam – Ketav Yad,” Alei Sefer 11 (1984), pp. 73-80  Jonathan Jacobs argues that these are not part of Rashbam’s Torah commentary but from a polemical letter Rashbam sent to a student. See “Rashbam’s Major Principles of Interpretation as Deduced from a Manuscript Fragment Discovered in 1984” REJ 170 (2011), pp. 443-463. For more comments of Rashbam found in another manuscript, see Elazar Touitou, “Ha-Peshatot ha-Mithadshim be-Khol Yom: Iyunim be-Ferusho shel ha-Rashbam la-Torah (Ramat Gan, 2003), pp. 189ff.
[19] See Israel Moshe Ta-Shma, Ha-Sifrut ha-Parshanit la-Talmud be-Eiropah u-vi-Tzefon Afrikah (Jerusalem, 1999), vol. 1, p. 58.
[20] See Eva Frojimovic, “Jewish Scribes and Christian Illuminators: Interstitial Encounters and Cultural Negotiation,” in Katrin Kogman-Appel and Mati Meyer, eds. Between Judaism and Christianity: Art Historical Essays in Honor of Elisheva (Elisabeth) Revel Neher (Leiden, 2009),  pp. 281-305; Hanna Liss, Creating Fictional Worlds: Peshat Exegesis and Narrativity in Rashbam’s Commentary on the Torah (Leiden, 2011), p. 45 n. 32; Colette Sirat, Hebrew Manuscripts of the Middle Ages, ed. and trans. Nicholas De Lange (Cambridge, 2002), p. 170. Sirat gives the date of the manuscript as 1232. In truth, we can’t be sure if it is 1232 or 1233 as the colophon only gives the Hebrew date 4993, but convention in such cases to give the later date. See the transcription in Frojimovic ,“Jewish Scribes,” p. 301.
[21] See R. Moshe David Chechik, “Inyanei Aseret ha-Dibrot ve-Ta’amei Rut le-Rabbenu Shlomo mi-Würzberg,” Mi-Shulhan ha-Melakhim 4 (2006), p. 5. R. Yaakov Yisrael Stal hopes to soon publish one of R. Solomon’s works. See Sodei Humash u-She’ar mi-Talmidei Rabbenu Yehudah he-Hasid, ed. Stal (Jerusalem, 1999), p. 17 n. 115.
[22] Leopold Zunz, Literaturgeschichte des synagogalen Poesie (Berlin, 1865). p. 287, does not think that the two R. Solomon ben Samuels are identical. He assumes that the author of the piyyut pre-dates the 13th century R. Solomon ben Samuel we are discussing.
[23] See here.
[24] See Changing the Immutable, p. 44.
[25] See the post of מה שנכון נכון here.
[26] See here.
[27] Or Torah, Elul 5774, pp. 1199-1200.
[28] See R. Yaakov Hayyim Sofer, Edut be-Yaakov (Jerusalem, 2011), vol. 2, p. 164.


ArtScroll’s Response and My Comments

 ArtScroll’s Response and My Comments
by Marc B. Shapiro 
My recent post here was more popular than my typical post. I base this statement on the fact that I received more emails from readers than usual and the post was picked up by a variety of different websites. The part dealing with the censorship of Rashbam was translated into Hebrew here (with one of the commenters calling for a herem to be placed on ArtScroll)[ and see also here.
ArtScroll has now issued its response. The following has been sent out to those who wrote to ArtScroll about the censorship.
Let us make clear at the outset, ArtScroll has total and uncompromising respect for Chazal and the classic commentators. We do not censor them. Every one of their words is holy, and we have never deigned to tamper with their sacred texts.
For an understanding of the matter under discussion, it is important to present the background of the published versions of Rashbam’s commentary on the Torah.

·      Rashbam’s commentary was first printed in 1705, based on the only existing manuscript of his virtually complete commentary on the Chumash. That manuscript began with Parashas Vayeira.

·      Subsequent editions were based on that 1705 printing.

·      In 1882, David Rosin published a new annotated edition of Rashbam’s commentary.

·   The new edition also included a commentary on the Parshiyos Bereishis, Noach, and Lech-Lecha based on comments culled by Rosin from Rashbam’s other writings as well as selections from other works that cite Rashbam. Additionally, this 1882 edition included material taken from a newly-discovered manuscript containing one page of commentary ascribed to Rashbam, on only the first chapter of Bereishis ending in the middle of verse 1:31.

·      This manuscript fragment includes an exegesis that appears several times – an exegesis that Ibn Ezra, in his famous Iggeres HaShabbos, vehemently condemns, stating, that it had been put forth by “minim” (heretics). Furthermore, a later exegesis in the same manuscript page (on verse 14) directly contradicts that earlier exegesis.
In our Czuker edition of Mikraos Gedolos, we wished to provide the Torah public with the fullest version of the Rashbam’s commentary, so rather than beginning with Parashas Vayeira, we incorporated additional material from the 1882 Rosin edition, from the beginning of Bereishis. However, given Ibn Ezra’s attribution of this exegesis to “minim,” coupled with a completely contradictory exegesis in verse 14, it is questionable whether Rashbam actually proposed the exegesis attributed to him.  Because of these factors we added only those writings attributed to Rashbam whose authenticity have not been questioned. Far from “censorship,” we have added to the older, standard Mikraos Gedolos editions.
Nevertheless, for the sake of clarity, we should have indicated that the basis for our text of Rashbam was the standard Vilna edition of 1898, with emendations from the Rosin edition of 1882. Indeed, this is what we have indicated in our just-published Sefer Shemos volume, and which will be reflected in future reprints of Sefer Bereishis.
* * * *
In my response I will only deal with the matter at hand, that is, the censorship of Rashbam’s commentary, not with the larger matter of whether ArtScroll really has “total and uncompromising respect for . . . the classic commentators.” I have dealt with this latter point in previous posts and offered evidence that contradicts ArtScroll’s assertion.
Let me begin by saying that the one word that best describes ArtScroll’s statement is “chutzpah”. Here we have an explanation from Rashbam that has been discussed and dealt with by some of the greatest Torah scholars for well over a century, yet ArtScroll feels that it knows better than all of them and thus has the authority to simply delete passages from the commentary. If that isn’t chutzpah, I don’t know what is.

Rashbam’s brother, Rabbenu Tam, famously attacked those who deleted or emended passages in the Talmud based on their own understanding.[1] Rabbenu Tam realized that if everyone had the freedom to do with the text as he wished, it wouldn’t be long before the Talmud was irrevocably damaged. As such, anyone who has a suggestion about a mistake in the text is free to add it in the form of a note or in a commentary, but he is not permitted to alter the text itself. The only honest thing would have been for ArtScroll to have included the “objectionable” passages and then explain why they feel that these texts are not authentic.
The fact that ArtScroll sees the passages that it deleted as heretical is irrelevant. Great people have regarded texts of the Rambam, of R. Kook, and of many others as heretical. Does that mean that we can start deleting these texts? There are aharonim and at least one rishon who believe that there are passages in the Talmud that were inserted by people intent on mocking the Sages (details will be in a future post). Does that mean that if ArtScroll shares this opinion it is entitled to delete these passages as well?
As I mentioned, the chutzpah is seen in the fact that ArtScroll feels that it knows better than such great figures as R. David Zvi Hoffmann[2] and R. Yaakov Kamenetsky.[3] Both of these men were not simply great talmudists but were also great biblical scholars, and they expound Rashbam’s view. It never occurred to them to delete the passages or to claim that they aren’t authentic. Cassuto was another great biblical scholar and he believed that Rashbam’s understanding of the verse is correct.[4]
Every student of Torah is taught the virtue of humility. What this means is that if you don’t understand something you seek out people greater than yourself to hear their perspective. How come ArtScroll didn’t follow this route before taking the drastic step of deleting the comments of Rashbam?
Unfortunately, if ArtScroll’s mikraot gedolot becomes the standard, anyone who uses the commentaries of R. Hoffmann, R. Kamenetsky, Cassuto and so many others will be very confused. These commentaries will cite Rashbam and explain his words, but the reader who opens up his ArtScroll mikraot gedolot to see what Rashbam says “inside” won’t be able to find it. If he doesn’t read the Seforim Blog, he won’t know what is going on.
For over a hundred years people studied Rashbam’s commentary without any problem. Different interpretations were offered, all in order to make sense of Rashbam’s words. Around fifteen years ago a few people, none of whom have any scholarly or religious standing, started making noise that there is heresy in Rashbam’s commentary on Genesis chapter 1.[5] This led a couple of haredi publishers to delete some or all of the “problematic” comments (different editions have different deletions).[6]
ArtScroll has chosen to follow this regrettable path. When this nonsense first began with the haredim in Israel, the great R. Yehoshua Mondshine, whose recent passing is an enormous loss for all, published the following letter in Kovetz Beit Aharon ve-Yisrael.[7]

The disdain he shows in this letter would be magnified if he were writing about ArtScroll, as one would expect ArtScroll to know better. It is unfortunate that ArtScroll did not heed his final words directed towards publishers inclined to censorship.
יש להתרות במו”לים שלא יהיו נחפזים “לצנזר” את פירוש הרשב”ם מכח סברות תמוהות וקלושות, ויחרדו לנפשם מאזהרות הקדמונים דלייטי ליד המגיה בספרים.
Following R. Mondshine’s letter, there appears a very lengthy letter by R. Menahem ben Shimon[8] explaining that Rashbam’s comments at the beginning of Genesis should not be controversial at all. He concludes by comparing censorship of Rashbam to the burning of Maimonides’ Guide of the Perplexed, and adds
יש בזה עזות מצח, וביזוי דברי הקדמונים, והתייחסות לדבריהם כאילו חלילה מדובר בתקליטור עם משחקים חינוכיים “בהכשר הרבנים”, וכיו”ב, וכבר הזהירונו חז”ל להיזהר בכבוד תלמידי חכמים שכל דבריהם כגחלי אש.
I have to acknowledge that some people are having a good chuckle right now at my expense. Call it naiveté, but I was convinced that the response of ArtScroll would be to admit the mistake, blame it on an error in “editing” or something like that, and correct matters in the next printing. That would have been a great outcome. I, more than many others, was shocked by ArtScroll’s response. 
In its response ArtScroll states: “[G]iven Ibn Ezra’s attribution of this exegesis to “minim,” coupled with a completely contradictory exegesis in verse 14, it is questionable whether Rashbam actually proposed the exegesis attributed to him.”
The first thing to note is that in the preface to the Iggeret ha-Shabbat, where Ibn Ezra explains what led him to write the work, he does not attribute this exegesis to “minim”. ArtScroll would have you believe that Ibn Ezra stated that the passages they have deleted are heretical interpolations. Even if this was the case, it would only be Ibn Ezra’s opinion. This would not entitle ArtScroll to delete the passages, just like they don’t have the right to delete other passages that some commentator thought were not authentic. But in this case ArtScroll is simply wrong, and I hope that they are not intentionally misleading people. (I also hope that they informed the sponsor of the new mikraot gedolot that they intended to delete passages from Rashbam.[9])

Here is the text from Ibn Ezra.[10]

As you can see, Ibn Ezra responds very sharply to the interpretation mentioned by Rashbam. Although Rashbam is not mentioned by name, the standard view in traditional and scholarly circles is that Ibn Ezra was indeed directing his words at Rashbam and not at others who shared this perspective. This would explain his use of the words ולא תשא פני איש which would only be used with reference to an outstanding scholar.[11] David Kahana suggests that, as a sign of respect, Ibn Ezra does not mention Rashbam by name and he also does not curse the author of the explanation he is attacking.[12] He only curses the one who reads it aloud and the scribe who writes it. If Ibn Ezra was directing his comment against some heretic, we would expect him to curse this person, so the fact that he does not do so is quite significant and indeed points to Rashbam as the “addressee” of Ibn Ezra’s Iggeret ha-Shabbat.
Ibn Ezra never denies the authenticity of the interpretation he is responding to; he just attacks it. His attack on Rashbam’s view is just like Nahmanides’ attack on Maimonides’ view that the angels who came to Abraham were really just part of a prophetic vision. Nahmanides does not deny that Maimonides said this, but he does say that it is forbidden to accept what Maimonides says. It is the exact same thing here. Ibn Ezra is not denying that Rashbam offered the interpretation. He is simply saying that it is forbidden to accept this approach. (I should also add, since we are discussing a dispute between Ibn Ezra and Rashbam, that by any traditional measure Rashbam must be regarded as a more significant and authoritative figure than Ibn Ezra.)

ArtScroll also states that since Rashbam’s commentary to Genesis 1:14 contradicts what he says in the passages deleted by ArtScroll, this gives weight to their assumption that the other passages were not written by Rashbam but were instead inserted by some heretic. To begin with, since there are five[13] “problematic” comments and one “non-problematic” comment, perhaps it is the “non-problematic” comment to Genesis 1:14 that is to be regarded as inauthentic and should be removed. I say this only tongue and cheek, since ArtScroll should have realized two pretty basic things.
1. Rashbam often offers explanations, even in matters of halakhah, that are in line with the peshat of the text but diverge from the talmudic understanding. I understand that in some contemporary circles this would be regarded as heretical, since they assume that the meaning of the verse, especially in halakhic matters, can only be what the sages of the Talmud declare. Yet Rashbam had a different perspective, and he allowed for a peshat that diverges from what the Talmud states.
2. If you have contradictory explanations in the same chapter, the proper thing to do is to see if they can be reconciled before deciding that some of the comments are not authentic and can therefore be deleted. This was the approach of the great scholars of the last century who discussed Rashbam’s commentary. If ArtScroll had “uncompromising respect” for these figures, who devoted great time to understanding what Rashbam was saying, they would not have dared delete Rashbam’s comments, since by doing so they are in effect claiming that they know better than R. Hoffmann, R. Kamenetsky, and so many others.
Let me cite some other writers, including outstanding Torah scholars, who discussed Rashbam’s comments on when the day begins. In ArtScroll’s eyes this was all a big waste of time, since Rashbam never could have said what appears in his commentary. I guess we should all feel sorry for these Torah scholars that when they wrote they didn’t have ArtScroll around to set them straight. The more important question is why didn’t ArtScroll think that any of the explanations offered by these scholars were enough to save Rashbam’s comments from being deleted? (My own sense is that the individual who made the choice to censor Rashbam did not begin to understand the issue and was unaware of the sources referred to in this post.)
1. R. Menahem M. Kasher discusses Ibn Ezra’s attack on Rashbam and offers an explanation for Rashbam’s position, distinguishing between how the days were structured in the first six days of creation and what occurred afterwards.[14] R. Kasher also cites R. Pinhas Horowitz, Ha-Makneh to Kiddushin 37b, that before the giving of the Torah night came after day, and this can also be an explanation for Rashbam’s approach. In support of his assumption, R. Horowitz cites a verse not mentioned by Rashbam, Genesis 8:22:  ויום ולילה לא ישבתו. As you can see, in this verse night comes after day. (R. Horowitz repeats this explanation in his Panim Yafot to Genesis 8:22.) R. Moses Sofer cites this point from R. Horowitz and notes that even today it is only with regard to Jews that night precedes day, but for non-Jews the halakhah remains that day precedes night.[15]
R. Ezekiel Landau agrees with R. Horowitz that before the giving of the Torah the day did not start at night.[16] In support of this approach, R. Samuel Mirsky refers to Ugaritic literature which he regards as real evidence for Rashbam’s position.[17]
R. Moshe Malka also takes note of R. Horowitz’s position.[18]  Based on it he claims that
נחה שקטה תמיהתו של הראב”ע על הרשב”ם, כי הוא דבר על מעשה בראשית לפני מת”ת
R. Catriel David Kaplin also refers to R. Horowitz’ perspective and explains that Rashbam agrees with it.[19]
R. Kasher further cites R. Isaac Israeli (14th century) as agreeing with R. Horowitz. In his Yesod Olam[20] R. Israeli writes
וכן נהגו כל ישראל ממתן תורה ועד עתה להתחיל קדושת השבת ושאר ימי מקראי קודש מתחילת הלילה . . . ועל העיקר הנכון הזה יסדו לנו קדמונינו וקבעו בחשבון מולדות הלבנה ותקופת החמה.
R. Kasher calls attention to the words ממתן תורה ועד עתה and concludes that R Israeli is telling us that before the giving of the Torah the day began in the morning.
Finally, R. Kasher points to two separate rabbinic texts, one talmudic and one midrashic, that he feels can support Rashbam’s approach.
2. Da’at Mikra to Genesis 1:5 (p. 10 n. 168) explains that Rashbam’s understanding of when the day begins only refers to the six days of creation.
3. A different approach in explaining Rashbam is taken by R. Moshe Schwerd in a recent article in Or Yisrael.[21]
4. The Lubavitcher Rebbe refers to Rashbam’s explanation of when the day begins in order to illustrate how explanations in accord with peshat can contradict the accepted halakhah.[22]
5. R. Chaim Leib Zaks calls attention to the fact that two medieval authorities explain Genesis 1:5: ויהי ערב ויהי בקר, just as Rashbam did, that is, that day comes before night.[23] The first is the commentary attributed to Rashi, Ta’anit 11b, s.v. למחר.[24] The second is the commentary attributed to Rashi, Nazir 7a s.v. התם.[25]
6. R. Eliyahu Katz, who served as rav of Bratislava under the Communists and later as chief rabbi of Be’er Sheva, published a number of interesting books which appear to be completely unknown. In his Emor ve-Amarta[26] he states that R. Judah ha-Nasi might also have held that according to the peshat night comes after day, and that Rashbam might have based his explanation on R. Judah’s opinion. He also points out that Rashi, Genesis 1:14 writes
שמוש החמה חצי יום ושמוש הלבנה חציו הרי יום שלם
This is a strange formulation since Rashi appears to be agreeing with Rashbam that the day – שמוש החמה – comes before the night – שמוש הלבנה.
7. R. Jacob of Vienna, in his commentary to Genesis 1:5, writes[27]:
וא”ת אימא הלילה הולך אחר היום והכי קאמר ויהי ערב של יום הראשון ויהי בקר של יום שני אז נשלם יום שלם
In his note to this passage R. Zvi Rotberg understandably refers to Rashbam, as R. Jacob might indeed be alluding to him here.[28] The editor of R. Jacob’s volume, R. Menasheh Grossberg, refers to R. Pinhas Horowitz’s view mentioned above.
8. R. Shlomo Fisher, without question one of the top Torah scholars in the world, elaborates on the implication of Rashbam’s view that it is only through Torah she-Ba’al Peh, not the peshat of the verses, that we know that day comes after night.[29] A student of R. Fisher asked him about the censorship of Rashbam, and not surprisingly he expressed strong opposition to any such tampering with the writings of rishonim. He also told this student about a contemporary “scholar” who claims that Rashbam was influenced by evil people who caused him to go astray! Talk about chutzpah![30]
10. Michael Landy called my attention to the fact that Abarbanel cites the interpretation mentioned by Rashbam in the name of יש מהמפרשים.[31]
All of these sources that I have quoted, and believe me when I tell you that there are many more, are simply designed to show that the view of Rashbam expressed in his commentary to the first chapter of Genesis is part and parcel of Torah history and literature. Many of our great minds have discussed Rashbam’s view in a variety of contexts. Yet ArtScroll, on its own, has decided that it knows best and chose to remove the words of Rashbam from the public eye. They have no right or authority to do this. Their action is a betrayal of Rashbam and of those who want to study the writings of Rashbam. It is also an incredible display of disrespect to those great Torah scholars who have devoted time to the matter and explained the comments of Rashbam that ArtScroll prefers to view as heretical.
After all we have seen, let us return to the issue of Ibn Ezra’s attack on Rashbam and ask why it was so harsh. After all, what is so terrible about explaining the peshat of the Torah even if it diverges from the accepted halakhah, an approach that is found in numerous commentators?
The significance of the example we have been discussing is that there were indeed sectarians who observed Shabbat from Saturday morning until Sunday morning. Rashbam’s interpretation was thus dangerous as it could have had real world implications by giving support to the anti-halakhic behavior just mentioned.
In his commentary to Exodus 16:25 Ibn Ezra refers to “many people, lacking in faith” who erred in this matter and did not start Shabbat on Friday night. He tells us that they based their mistaken approach on Genesis 1:5: ויהי ערב ויהי בקר. In other words, they interpreted the verse in the same way that Rashbam did. Towards the end of Iggeret Shabbat, p. 171, he also mentions these “minim” who do not observe Shabbat beginning Friday night. It is thus easy to see why Ibn Ezra reacted so strongly and set out to uproot Rashbam’s interpretation.
Who were these sectarians Ibn Ezra refers to? Presumably the Mishawites, a group that we know started Shabbat on Saturday morning.[32] Benjamin of Tudela records meeting sectarians in Cyprus, again presumably Mishawites, who indeed observed the Shabbat in this fashion.[33]
In the last paragraph of the ArtScroll letter it states that from now on they will note that their text of Rashbam is the standard Vilna edition of 1898 with “emendations from the Rosin edition of 1882”. This is clearly obfuscation as we are not dealing here with any “emendations” suggested by Rosin. To repeat what the issue is: Rosin printed from manuscript Rashbam’s commentary to Genesis chapter 1. This section of the commentary does not appear in the standard Vilna edition. ArtScroll chose to include Rashbam’s commentary to Genesis chapter 1 in its recently published mikraot gedolot. However, ArtScroll also chose to delete those sections of the commentary it didn’t like, assuming (without any evidence) that these sections were written by heretics. This is censorship of  Rashbam. That is all people need to know.[34]
ArtScroll has done some great things. They have also done some pretty disappointing things. But as I said in the prior post, nothing comes close to this. Deleting comments of one of the greatest rishonim is simply outrageous. Some have said that what ArtScroll did is unforgivable. I think this is going too far. If ArtScroll acknowledges its error and reinserts that which has been removed, I think that we all would be very happy to put this behind us. One of the most important aspects of a Torah personality is the ability to recognize when one has made a mistake and rectify it. If ArtScroll is able to do this, it would lead to great admiration.

On the other hand, if ArtScroll refuses to acknowledge that it has made a terrible error, even after seeing the evidence presented in this post, then one must conclude that ArtScroll is knowingly suppressing the words of a great rishon. One can only hope that ArtScroll does not wish to have this blemish permanently attached to its name.

[1] ArtScroll and other publishers should pay close attention to the words of Rabbenu Tam, which I would have thought would be enough to scare off the censors. Sefer ha-Yashar, ed. Rosenthal (Berlin, 1898), p. 75:
ומגיהי חנם, בעיני דינם, למדורי גהינם
P. 105:
כי כאשר לא יודעים, העולם מטעים, וכאשר תוהים, הספרים מגיהים. ואתם הרעות מהם, כי הם כותבים ה”ג בהגהותיהם, ולכן ניכר מעבדיהם. ואתה לא כן, אך סותם הגהותיך וסומכים עליך וטועים . . . אין עצה ואין תבונה, רק להעמיד על האמת ולזרוק מרה במגיהי הספרים
Even if they are not scared of מדורי גהינם, one would have thought that they would have seen the wisdom of what Rabbenu Tam writes in the introduction to Sefer ha-Yashar, ed. Schlesinger (Jerusalem, 1985), p. 9:
והדין נותן אם לא ידע אדם הלכה יכתוב פתרונו לפי ראות עיניו אם ירצה אך בספרים אל ימחק שדברי תורה עניים במקומן ועשירים במקום אחר ואם דבר רק הוא ממנו הוא [רק]
                       
[2] Sefer Bereshit, trans. Asher Wasserteil (Bnei Brak, 1969), pp. 26-27. Hoffmann writes as follows:
כמו גם פרשנים חדשים רבים הוא [רשב”ם] סבר, שבימי מעשה בראשית נמנו הימים באופן שונה מדרך מנייתם לאחר מכן, בימי מתן תורה, כשם שגם תחילת השנה לפני מתן תורה שונה – לדעת ר’ אליעזר – מזו שלאחריו.
[3] Emet le-Yaakov (Cleveland Heights, 2007), p. 17.
[4] Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, trans. Israel Abrahams (Jerusalem, 1998), p. 28.
[5] As far as I know, the first one to assert that Rashbam’s comments are heretical interpolations was R. Yehudah Nachshoni, Hagut be-Farashiyot ha-Torah (Bnei Brak, 1981), vol. 1, p. 262, but this had no impact on the haredi world. Here is the page from Nachshoni.

He writes:
לדעתו יש לחשוש שמא חלו ידי קראים בדברי הרשב”ם
What this means is that Ibn Ezra thought that perhaps Rashbam’s metaphorical interpretation of the commandment of tefillin in Ex. 13:9 is a Karaite interpolation. This is complete nonsense as Ibn Ezra says nothing of the sort. I think, therefore, that there is a typo and the first word should read לדעתי. It is still nonsense but at least now the sentence is understandable. Following this, Nachshoni adds another absurdity, stating that Rashbam’s interpretation of when the day starts is also a Karaite interpolation. (Prof. Daniel Lasker has confirmed to me that all Karaites began the Sabbath on Friday night.)
Now comes the real irony. ArtScroll published a posthumous translation of Nachshoni’s book in 1988. Apparently ArtScroll was embarrassed by what Nachshoni wrote so ArtScroll censored it! Here is the English version, Studies in the Weekly Parashah, vol. 2, pp. 414-415.
In 1988 ArtScroll censored the writings of Nachshoni because he said that Rashbam’s comments were heretical interpolations, but in 2014 ArtScroll accepted this very position and instead censored Rashbam! Can it get any crazier than this?
As an aside, let me also note that I find it strange that ArtScroll does not give Nachshoni the title “Rabbi” on the title page of its translation of his book, even though he is referred to as such in the preface.
[6] It is possible that the haredi publishers who censored Rashbam did so purely for financial reasons. After putting a lot of money into their editions, a pashkevil directed against them, incited by some extremist, could be financially devastating. In the haredi world it is often enough to say that there is a “problem” with a book for people not to buy it. The masses won’t have a clue about the issue, but if there is a choice between two competing mikraot gedolots, they will feel safer buying the one which has not had any questions raised about it.
[7] (Kislev-Tevet 5760), p. 150.
[8] Ibid., pp. 151-155.
[9] I don’t have the newly published ArtScroll mikraot gedolot on Exodus (and will refuse to buy it until Rashbam’s commentary is fixed). I was curious if Rashbam on Ex. 13:9 appears in full or if it too was censored. Here Rashbam states that the commandment of tefillin in this verse: והיה לך לאות על ידך ולזכרון בין עיניך, is to be understood metaphorically. Ibn Ezra, in his commentary on Ex.13:9, harshly criticizes the metaphorical interpretation. A friend sent me a copy of this page of Rashbam and the commentary appears in full. I did notice, however, that in the following verse in Rashbam, Ex. 13:10, it reads חוקת הפסח with a dagesh in the kuf. This is a mistake, and in the next printing the dagesh should be removed.
If ArtScroll is looking for something to censor in the newly released volume, Or ha-Hayyim to Ex. 31:16 probably fits the bill. In this controversial passage Or ha-Hayyim states that we don’t violate Shabbat to save the life of someone who will not live until the next Shabbat. This contradicts an explict talmudic passage, Yoma 85a, that one violates Shabbat even for hayyei sha’ah. See R. Ovadiah Yosef, Hazon Ovadiah: Shabbat, vol. 3, pp. 296ff. R. Judah Aryeh Leib Alter, Sefat Emet: Likutim (New York, 1957), p. 77a (Ki Tisa), already suggested that an “erring student” wrote these words in Or ha-Hayyim.
[10] It appears in Kerem Hemed 4 (1839), pp. 160-161.       
[11] See Aharon Mondshine, “Li-She’elat ha-Yahas she-Bein Perusheihem shel R. Avraham Ibn Ezra ve-Rashbam la-Torah: Behinah Mehudeshet,” Teudah 16-17 (2010), p. 17.
[12]  Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra (Warsaw, 1894), vol. 1, part 2, p. 45 n. 4.
[13] In the previous post I noted four examples of ArtScroll’s censorship with regard to Rashbam’s peshat  understanding of when the day begins: Gen. 1:4, 5, 8, 31. I neglected to mention Rashbam’s commentary to Gen. 1:6 which is also censored by Artscroll. Regarding why Rashbam’s commentary to the first three parashiyot of Genesis were missing from the manuscript, see Itamar Kislev in Tarbiz 73 (2004), p. 229 n. 12.
[14] Torah Shelemah, vol. 10-11, pp. 276-279.
[15] Hiddushei Hatam Sofer to Shabbat 87a. R. Akiva Eger points out that R. Horowitz’s position leads to a very interesting conclusion. Here is the summary in R. Yaakov Moshe Shurkin’s commentary to Teshuvot Rabbi Akiva Eger (Lakewood, 2003), vol. 2, p. 769 (Pesakim, no. 121):
וכתב רבינו דלפי חידושו של הפנים יפות הנ”ל, דדין עכו”ם ששבת חייב מיתה הוא ביום ולילה שלאחריו, יש להמליץ זכות על אלו שבאו להתגייר ומרגילים את עצמם לשמור את השבת גם קודם שנתגיירו כנ”ל, די”ל שאינם עוברים בזה באיסור דעכו”ם ששבת, דסגי להו אם יעשו מלאכה במוצאי שבת, וכדברי הפנים יפות הנ”ל. ואין צריך למחות בשפחות הנ”ל מלשבות בשבת.
[16] Tziyun le-Nefesh Hayah to Pesahim 116b.
[17]  “Midot ha-Parshanut ha-Mikrait,” Sura 1 (1954), p. 396.
[18] Be’er Moshe (Lod, 1994), p. 14. He also questions R. Horowitz’s position by citing Mishnah, Hullin 5:5:
                  
מה יום אחד האמור במעשה בראשית היום הולך אחר הלילה
Rashbam could easily reply that the Mishnah is not speaking in terms of peshat. However, I am surprised that neither R. Horowitz nor R. Landau discuss this text which would appear to contradict their approach, as they assume that the Talmud agrees that before the giving of the Torah night came after day.
[19] Keter Nehora (Jerusalem, 2004), p. 114.
[20] (Berlin, 1848), vol. 1, p. 35 (2:17).
[21] “Hagdarat Zemanei ha-Yom ve-ha-Laylah al pi Halakhah u-Mahashavah” Or Yisrael (Nisan 5770), pp. 226ff.
[22] Sihot Kodesh (1967), part 2, sihah from 12 Tamuz 5727, p. 284.
[23] “Be-Inyan ha-me-Et le-Et shel Ma’aseh Bereshit,” Ha-Maor (Oct. 1957), pp. 4ff.
[24] This source was also noted by R. Abraham Elijah Kaplan. See Divrei Talmud (Jerusalem, 1958), vol. 1, p. 42 n. 97:
וזה מזכיר דברי רשב”ם שנלחם בם ראב”ע במחברתו אגרת השבת
[25] Kaplin, Keter Nehora, p. 115, also refers to this commentary to Nazir.
[26] (Be’er Sheva, 1994), vol. 1, pp. 26-27.
[27] Peshatim u-Ferushim (Mainz, 1888),  pp. 9-10
[28] Le-Misbar Kera’e (Bnei Brak, 2005),  p. 49.
[29] Derashot Beit Yishai (n.p., 2004), p. 48 n. 11.
[30] E-mail of this student to me.
[31] Commentary to Genesis, p. 33 in the standard edition.
[32] Regarding the Mishawites, see Zvi Ankori, Karaites in Byzantium (Jerusalem, 1968), pp. 372-416. Regarding whether the Dead Sea Sect started the Sabbath on Saturday morning, see Lawrence Schiffman, The Halakhah at Qumran (Leiden, 1975), pp. 84-85. See also Jacob Z. Lauterbach, Rabbinic Essays (Cincinnati, 1951), pp. 446ff.
[33] See The Itinerary of Benjamin of Tudela, ed. Adler (London, 1907), pp. 17-18 (Hebrew), p. 15 (English).
[34] Here is the page listing the texts used in preparation of the ArtScroll mikraot gedolot for the Book of Genesis.

There is no mention of the Mossad ha-Rav Kook editions, perhaps because of copyright concerns. But there is no doubt that in preparing its text of the mikraot gedolot, an important source for ArtScroll for the commentaries of Ibn Ezra, Ramban, Hizkuni, R. Bahya ben Asher, and Sforno were the Mossad ha-Rav Kook editions (and perhaps also Bar Ilan’s Mikraot Gedolot ha-Keter).
For instance, look at the description of Hizkuni. The page from ArtScroll states that its text is based on the first printing and the manuscript thought to be from the author. This is exactly what one finds in Chavel’s edition of Hizkuni published by Mossad ha-Rav Kook. Does anyone really think that ArtScroll compared, line by line, the first printed edition to the manuscript? This work was already done by Chavel. All ArtScroll had to do was use the text provided by Mossad ha-Rav Kook. So how come ArtScroll can’t tell us this, and instead puts on this charade?

ArtScroll does not mention consulting manuscripts with any of the other texts included in its mikraot gedolot, only with the ones already published by Mossad ha-Rav Kook. ArtScroll also says that its edition of Hizkuni is based on the first printing, Cremona 1559. Yet the first printing was in Venice 1524. ArtScroll simply repeated Chavel’s mistake. See Chavel’s introduction to his edition, p. 11.
The title Hizkuni (which I don’t italicize since it is now used as a personal name) comes from the author’s introductory poem to the work. Here is the relevant page from the Chavel edition and on line 7 you can see the word vocalized.

Louis Jacobs, Jewish Biblical Exegesis (New York, 1973), p. 69, claims that the word should be vocalized as Hazekuni, which is the piel plural imperative (“strengthen me”; dagesh in zayin, sheva under zayin). R. Chaim Mordechai Brecher made the same point. See G. Kressel, ed., Ha-Ahim Shulsinger (Jerusalem, 1986), p. 119. I don’t see why this is preferable as Hizkuni is also correct, as the kal plural imperative, and the kal imperative is actually much more common in the Bible than the piel imperative. Furthermore, Hizkuni rhymes better with yizkeruni, the parallel word in the poem. Finally, look at the sentence in its entirety
ויקרא שמו בישראל חזקוני, למען קוראיו בשמו יזכרוני
This means that one who pronounces the title of the book, Hizkuni, will be reminded of the name of the author, Hizkiyah. This mnemonic only works if the title of the book has a hirik under the het, like in the author’s name. See A. Ben Ezra in Kressel, ed. Ha-Ahim Shulsinger, p. 119.
Here is the introductory poem from ArtScroll’s edition. The word חזקוני is missing a dagesh in the zayin which means that ArtScroll understood it as an imperative. (Chavel places a dagesh in the zayin, meaning that he understood it as  piel plural perfect.)

Look at the third line from the bottom on p. 8 where ArtScroll has
ומבואר [נ”א: ומכוער]
Anyone who understands Hebrew can see that ומבואר is incorrect (and this error also appears in the Venice 1524 edition). When ArtScroll prepared its mikraot gedolot it had Chavel’s edition in front of it. Chavel’s edition is based on what appears to be the manuscript of the author. In this manuscript (which ArtScroll claims to have consulted) one finds the reading ומכוער. So how come this is not the word that appears in the text published by ArtScroll? This is the original reading, not a נוסח אחר. (At best, ArtScroll could have put ומבואר in brackets, but why would this even be necessary in a non-critical edition?) If ArtScroll thinks that it is important to cite the Cremona reading, then how come immediately following this it doesn’t have כי מי ימצא בו דבר חכמה מפואר. As you can see, this is what appears in the Cremona text, and again, one who knows Hebrew will realize that it doesn’t make much sense.

In the manuscript, which is the basis of Chavel’s version, the text reads אשר ימצא בו דבר חכמה מפואר. This is what appears in ArtScroll, with no indication that there is an alternative text. So why did ArtScroll feel the need to add [נ”א: ומכוער] in the previous part of the sentence? Is this just a way of showing the reader that ArtScroll is “scientific” and has examined the different versions?
If you compare ArtScroll’s version of the introductory poem to that which appears in Chavel’s edition, which is based on the manuscript, you will find that other than the example just mentioned, ArtScroll relies entirely on the mistaken text from the Cremona edition instead of using the correct version from the manuscript. Just skimming through the commentary I found other examples where ArtScroll ignores the manuscript reading in favor of the Cremona edition. I don’t know why ArtScroll did this, but it again shows that ArtScroll’s new edition of mikraot gedolot was not properly edited. 

I also found what I think is a punctuation mistake in ArtScroll’s edition of the poem. See the page from Chavel printed above, the second column, second to last line: ובעיני א-להים יישר. Chavel punctuates יישר as a pual imperfect. ArtScroll punctuates it as a kal imperfect. Because of the rhyming, I think Chavel is correct.

The issue of how ArtScroll uses works of prior scholarship requires a more detailed study than I can provide here. I would, however, like to point to one problematic aspect. Let us look briefly at ArtScroll’s Five Megillos, the earliest ArtScroll publication. ArtScroll is very proud of the fact that it only uses traditional rabbinic sources. On the first page of the commentary to each of the five megillot, we are informed that all material in square brackets is a comment from the author, which we are to assume is an original insight.
Here is ArtScroll’s commentary to Ruth 4:10.

Now read what appears in the Soncino commentary to Ruth 4:10.

ArtScroll’s entire comment is lifted from Soncino. Quite apart from the plagiarism, I find it troubling that ArtScroll feels that Soncino is good enough to be used, just not good enough to be mentioned by name. (When ArtScroll changed some of Soncino’s wording, a mistake crept in. Soncino has “sacred duty of building a home.” ArtScroll intended to change this to “sacred task of building a home,” but instead of “task” it reads “text”.)
After David Farkas called this example to my attention, it did not take me long to find other examples, of which I offer two. Here is Soncino’s commentary to Ruth 4:1.

Now look at ArtScroll on this same verse.

It is obvious that Soncino is the basis for what is found in ArtScroll. (Note the words “fairly large edifice” in both Soncino and ArtScroll.) 
Here is Soncino’s commentary to Esther 2:20.

Now look at ArtScroll on this same verse

Again, it is obvious that Soncino is the basis for what is found in ArtScroll. (Note the words “filial piety” in both Soncino and ArtScroll.)