The Origin and Evolution of a “Rashi Yashan”- In Praise of Artscroll
Rashi Breishit 12:2 – “ואעשך לגוי גדול”

Eli Genauer

The term “רש״י ישן” in printed editions often appears after a comment recorded in parentheses. An example of this is Rashi in Breishit 12:2. Here is how it looks in the first edition of the Artscroll Stone Chumash printed in November 1993:

Rashi’s comments are recorded as follows

Comment #1

ואעשך לגוי גדול. לְפִי שֶׁהַדֶּרֶךְ גּוֹרֶמֶת לִשְׁלֹשָׁה דְבָרִים, מְמַעֶטֶת פְּרִיָּה וּרְבִיָּה וּמְמַעֶטֶת אֶת הַמָּמוֹן וּמְמַעֶטֶת אֶת הַשֵּׁם, לְכָךְ הֻזְקַק לִשְׁלֹשָׁה בְּרָכוֹת הַלָּלוּ, שֶׁהִבְטִיחוֹ עַל הַבָּנִים וְעַל הַמָּמוֹן וְעַל הַשֵּׁם:

Comment #2 (attributed to ספרים אחרים and found in a “רש״י ישן”)

ס״א (ספרים אחרים) ואגדלה שמך הריני מוסיף אות על שמך שעד עכשׁיו שמך אברם מכאן ואילך אברהם ואברהם עולה רמ״ח כנגד איבריו של אדם. ברש״י ישן

One wonders a bit at the use of the terminology that something is found “ברש״י ישן” because it would seem that nowadays, all comments of Rashi are “old”. One also gets the impression that this comment might be more authentic than those comments normally attributed to Rashi because it was found in a רש״י ישן. [I]

To understand why this comment is recorded as being from a “רש״י ישן’ one must go back to the first time it appeared as such. In this case it is an edition of Chumash and Rashi printed in Hanau 1611-1614.[2]

The most probable source for the text as recorded in the Hanau 1611-14 edition is an edition of Chumash and Rashi printed in Lisbon in 1492. As you can see, it is recorded almost word for word the same as the Hanau edition.[3]

It also appeared in an edition printed in Constantinople in 1522.

Why did the editors of the Hanau edition include this comment in parentheses and attribute it to a “רש״י ישן’?” Simply put because it had rarely appeared in print from 1491 until 1611 despite the fact that many other editions of Rashi had been printed. The editors most likely felt it was important to attribute the comment to something “new” they had found, a “רש״י ישן’.”

Here are some examples of texts printed between 1491 and 1611 where the comment does not appear. (Some of these editions are of Rashi alone, and others have the text of the Chumash along with Rashi)

1.Napoli 1492, 2. Bomberg Venice 1518, 3. Bomberg Venice 1522, 4. Rashi Bomberg Venice 1522, 5. Augsburg 1534, 6. Bomberg Venice 1538, 7. Giustiani Venice 1548, 8. Bomberg Venice 1548, 9. Sabionetta 1557, 10. Juan Di Gara Venice 1567,11. Cristoforo Zanetti Venice 1567, 12. Cracow 1587, and 13. Juan di Gara Venice 1590.[4]

After the comment was included in the Hanau edition of 1611-14, it was identified as a “רש״י ישן” from then on. Examples are:

Amsterdam 1635, Manasseh ben Israel, Amsterdam 1680, first edition of Siftai Chachamim, Berlin 1703,and Vienna (Netter) 1859[5] where it appears like this

As mentioned, it appeared this way all the way up to 1993 in the Artscroll Chumash. Though important to the Hanau editors, it did not make much sense 400 years later. It might have been more helpful to tell us the source in Chazal for the comment and that is precisely what Artscroll did.

In the Enhanced Edition of 2015 – (7th Impression 2020) it looked like this

The same was true of Rashi Sapirstein Student Edition 20^th Impression -2019

Gone was the information that the comment in parentheses came from a “רש״י ישן’”, to be replaced with the information that the Midrashic source for this comment was Breishit Rabbah 39:11. The first part of this Rashi “לְפִי שֶׁהַדֶּרֶךְ גּוֹרֶמֶת לִשְׁלֹשָׁה דְבָרִים” clearly appears there.

אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּא לְפִי שֶׁהַדֶּרֶךְ מַגְרֶמֶת לִשְׁלשָׁה דְבָרִים, מְמַעֶטֶת פְּרִיָּה וּרְבִיָּה, וּמְמַעֶטֶת אֶת הַיְצִיאָה, וּמְמַעֶטֶת אֶת הַשֵּׁם. מְמַעֶטֶת פְּרִיָּה וּרְבִיָּה, וְאֶעֶשְׂךָ לְגוֹי גָדוֹל. מְמַעֶטֶת אֶת הַיְצִיאָה, וַאֲבָרֶכְךָ. מְמַעֶטֶת אֶת הַשֵּׁם, וַאֲגַדְלָה שְׁמֶךָ.

But there was a problem, and that is that only part of the comment in parentheses appeared in Breishit Rabbah 39:11, that of Hashem adding a letter “הריני מוסיף אות על שמך” to the name of Avram. [6]

The rest of the Ma’amar “ואברהם עולה רמ״ח כנגד איבריו של אדם” is not found there but rather in Medrash Tanchuma 16[7] and in Nedarim 32b.[8] This is reflected in the Artscroll Rashi Elucidated Edition of 2023.

The section called שפתי ישינים in the back of this edition informs us that the first time these comments (הריני מוסיף אות על שמך) appeared in print was the Alkabetz Guadalajara, Spain edition of 1476, (דפוס 3) though in a slightly elongated form where the words “שיצא לך טבע מוניטין בעולם ד״א” preceded it. It appeared in a shortened form in Lisbon 1491, it was added to the text of Rashi in parentheses by the Hanau edition, and that it is recorded that way even today by many Chumashim.

Were these comments included by Rashi in his original commentary?

The respected website Al HaTorah notes on this additional comment that it is found in one manuscript[9] and in the Alkabetz edition, but that it does not appear in any other manuscript that it checked.[10]

בכ״י פריס 157 ובדפוס אלקבץ נוסף כאן: ״וזהו ואגדלה שמך שיצא לך טבע מוניטון בעולם. דבר אחר: ואגדלה שמך – הריני מוסיף אות על שמך, שעד עכשיו שמך אברם ומכאן ואילך אברהם, ועולה אברהם בנוטריקון רמ״ח כנגד איבריו של אדם שהן רמ״ח.״ הביאורים חסרים בכל כ״י האחרים שבדקנו

It is absent from most printed editions of the late 1400’s and the 1500’s. Avraham Berliner did not include it in either of his editions of Zechor L’Avraham (1867 and 1905).[11] It is not included in Mikraot Gedolot HaKeter, and in Torat Chaim of Mosad Harav Kook. (1993), and it is not included in the text of Rashi in Al HaTorah. It therefore seems to be a comment that did not originate with Rashi.

Finally, I feel that Artscroll should be acknowledged for continuing to “upgrade” its presentation of the Rashi text as it has clearly done in this case.

An Obscure Chumash Changes the Sefer HaChinuch Forever[1]
By Eli Genauer

I have a sefer in my collection with a very busy Shaar Blatt:

It is a Chumash printed by Yosef, Yaakov, and Avraham Proops in Amsterdam, 1767.[2] The Chumash contains some of the normal additions, such as Targum Onkelos and Rashi, along with two additions which are indicated as being “ואלה מוסיף על הראשונים”. I would like to focus on one of these additions, the Sefer HaChinuch. Placing the words of the Sefer HaChinuch underneath the text of the Chumash certainly made sense in theory, as one could review its words as one studied the Parsha. But it caused two major problems, one of which could be solved by use of a magnifying glass, and the other which brought about a change in the Sefer HaChinuch “עד היום הזה”.

The Sefer HaChinuch describes the details of, and reasons behind, the 613 Mitzvot.[3] Some of the explanations are very short, such as מצות אכילת מצה, (Mitzvah 10 -Shemot 12:18) so they fit nicely underneath a Pasuk. But when one Pasuk contains 3 Mitzvot and the lengthy explanations need to be placed underneath it (along with Onkelos, Rashi and Peirush Devek Tov), it creates a big problem with space. The only solution would be to have just one Pasuk on a page and to use smaller typeface for the Sefer HaChinuch than for Rashi. Here is how one page looks (Shemot 23:2). It includes Mitzvot 76,77 and 78.

This idea of including the Sefer HaChinuch in a “regular” Chumash was tried once again in 1783 in Frankfurt an der Oder, but perhaps because of this issue of space, never again after that.

This edition of the Chumash, which revised the order of the listing of the mitzvot, also altered the sequence in subsequent editions of the Sefer HaChinuch. This is despite the fact that the author of the Sefer HaChinuch specifically lists the Mitzvot of each parsha in one format. The Proops brothers’ edition of the Chumash overrode the author’s approach.[4] The original order for each Parsha is to list the מצוות עשה first and the מצוות לא תעשה afterwards. Here is how the Mitzvot of Parshat Tetzaveh are ordered in the oldest manuscript copy of the Sefer HaChinuch:

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.ebr.163[4]

This order was preserved in subsequent manuscripts, and in the first printed edition of Sefer HaChinuch.[6]

In placing the מצוות עשה first and then the מצוות לא עשה, the author of the Sefer HaChinuch is following the model of the Sefer HaMitzvot of the Rambam.[7] As he writes in Mitzvah 138:

עִם כָּל זֶה מִדֶּרֶךְ חֶשְׁבּוֹן הָרַמְבַּ“ם זִכְרוֹנוֹ לִבְרָכָה אֲשֶׁר [נִתְפַּשֵּׁט] בַּמִּצְוֹת לֹא נִטֶּה…. כִּי הוּא בֶּאֱמֶת סִבָּתֵנוּ בְּעֵסֶק זֶה, וּמִיָּדוֹ זָכִינוּ לוֹ….

This division is also preserved in the headings of the halakhot in Mishneh Torah, and Sefer HaChinuch then follows it.

But this order would not work for a Chumash designed to have the Mitzvot aligned with the Pesukim in the order they appeared in the Parsha, because the מצוות עשה and מצוות לא תעשה are interspersed within the Parsha. For example, Mitzvot 98 and 99 are מצוות עשה and come first in the Parsha. But Mitzvah 102 (a מצות לא תעשה) follows Mitzva 99(a מצות תעשה) in the Parsha so it becomes Mitzvah 100. Here is how it looks in a modern volume:

This change in the numeration of the Mitzvot was not lost on the Proops brothers, and they note that they hoped Torah scholars would look favorably on this change.

“And now, this treasured Sefer ( HaChinuch) has been modernized according to the order ( of the Pesukim of the Chumash) so that the reader can easily follow it as he reviews the Parshat HaShavua. It is now presented page by page and therefore we have not followed the order of the author who presented all the מצות תעשה and מצות לא תעשה separately….and we have confidence that this will be pleasing to scholars who love Torah and who do the Mitzvot of Hashem…”

Artscroll has published a 10-volume series on the Sefer HaChinuch[8] and notes that the order of the Mitzvot is the way they are recorded in the Parsha. The introduction states that whereas “other Rishonim arranged the Mitzvot topically, Chinuch arranges them according to the Parshiyos (weekly readings) of the Torah, and within each Parsha, in the order in which the Torah records them”. There is a footnote to that statement which clarifies the matter by saying that originally “the author arranged the Obligations and Prohibition separately within each Parsha, first presenting all the Obligations and then all the Prohibitions. This arrangement was preserved in the earliest printed editions of Chinuch. In the 18^th century, however, this format was changed, and since then the Chinuch has been printed with the Obligations and Prohibitions intermingled, in the order of the verses of the Torah”. There is no explanation as to why in the 18^th century the order was changed. We are left to wonder why
something formulated by a Rishon was changed.

Rabbi Chaim Dov Chavel does not react quite as calmly to this change.[9] In his scholarly edition of Sefer HaChinuch first published in 1952 by Mosad HaRav Kook, he is quite critical of the Chumash which made these changes.[10] He writes:

“במהדורה זו נעשו שינוים גדולים ורבים בטופס הספר שנכנסו בכל הדפוסים שבאו אחריה”

“In this edition, many major changes were made in the form of the book which were introduced into all the editions which followed”

He compares this edition to one which he feels is more authoritative, the first printed edition of Sefer HaChinuch, Venice 1523.[11]

Among the changes he lists is the one of re-ordering the positive and negative Mitzvot

“מצות עשה ולא תעשה נסדרו כאן בפעם הראשונה בערבוב, כלומר ביחד, כמו שהן סדורות בתורה

He concludes his criticism of the Chumash with the Sefer HaChinuch by writing that it was if the printers had given the Sefer HaChinuch a “פנים חדשות “

“את נוסח לשון רבינו בסדר המצוות ומנינן שינו המדפיסים לגמרי, וכמעט ששיזו לחלק זה פנים חדשות”

Because he feels it was wrong to change the order of the Mitzvot, he reverts back to the original order and numbering used in the Kitvei Yad and in the earliest printed editions.[12]

Rabbi Chavel is correct in that the order and the numbering of the Mitzvot was changed forever by the new order introduced in a Chumash which tried to incorporate in it the Sefer HaChinuch.[13] The initiative for changing the Order of Mitzvot was to for no other reason than to attempt to align the Sefer HaChinuch with a printed Chumash. No group of Torah scholars in the 18^th century got together to decide to make this change. I imagine that the author of the Sefer HaChinuch might even have considered re-ordering the Mitzvot to conform to the flow of each Parsha but decided to keep the order of positive Mitzvot all together first and negative Mitzvos all together second.[14] It leaves unanswered the question of whether changing the order of the Mitzvot (even though done for what was seen to be a positive purpose) was the correct thing to do?

[1] I call this Chumash “obscure” because as you will see later on, a great scholar was unaware of it.
[2] Encyclopedia.com notes in part on the Proops printers:

PROOPS, family of Hebrew printers, publishers, and booksellers in Amsterdam. SOLOMON BEN JOSEPH (d. 1734), whose father may have been a Hebrew printer as well, was established as a bookseller in Amsterdam and associated with other printers from 1697 to 1703….At his death, appointed guardians continued to operate the press, and even when his sons JOSEPH (d. 1786), JACOB (d. 1779), and ABRAHAM (d. 1792) took over, they traded under the old name until 1751.

https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/proops

On my sefer, there is an ownership stamp of הרב י.ל. הכהן פישמן, also known as Rabbi Yehuda Leib Fishman Maimon who was one of the signers of Israel’s Declaration of Independence and was the first minister of Religious Affairs. He was also an avid book collector who owned 40,000 books. There is another ownership stamp belonging to him on the page preceding the Shaar Blatt which looks like this

It quotes part of the Pasuk in Breishit 49:10 לֹֽא־יָס֥וּר שֵׁ֙בֶט֙ מִֽיהוּדָ֔ה– עַ֚ד כִּֽי־יָבֹ֣א שִׁילֹ֔ה and then says ספריה הרב יהודה ליב הכהן פישמן–ירושלים.
[3] The idea that there are 613 Mitzvot in the Torah, 365 negative Mitzvot and 248 positive Mitzvot, is first recorded in Talmud Bavli Masechet Makot 23b

דרש רבי שמלאי שש מאות ושלש עשרה מצות נאמרו לו למשה שלש מאות וששים וחמש לאוין כמנין ימות החמה ומאתים וארבעים ושמונה עשה כנגד איבריו של אדם

[4]There is much discussion as to who was the author who chose to remain anonymous.

Sefaria summarizes the issue as follows:

המחבר מזהה עצמו רק כ“איש יהודי מבית לוי ברצלוני“, ויש חילוקי דעות לגבי זהותו המדויקת. יש המייחסים את הספר לר’ אהרן הלוי (רא“ה), אבל כבר הוכח בבירור שהוא לא חיברו. אחרים מיחסים אותו לרּ פנחס הלוי, אחיו של הרא“ה.

[5] The bibliographic record at the National Library of Israel notes that it was written in 5093 (1333) based on the colophon which states:

נשלם על ידי אברהם בכמ”ר אברהם ז”ל ב”ר משה נ”ע ליל ו’ עשרים יום לחודש טבת שנת צ”ג

https://www.nli.org.il/en/discover/manuscripts/hebrew-
manuscripts/itempage?vid=MANUSCRIPTS&docId=PNX_MANUSCRIPTS990001132770205171&scope=PNX_MANU
SCRIPTS&SearchTxt=%D7%A1%D7%A4%D7%A8%20%D7%94%D7%97%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%9A
[6] I accessed the following manuscripts on KTIV, all of which had the same order. Parma 3016 – Laurentian Library, Florence, Italy Ms. Or. 473 -Casanatense Library, Rome, Italy Ms. 2857 – Paris BN 400vi.
[7] He was also following the pattern of the בעל הלכות גדולות, the first of the מוני המצוות.
[8] The Schottenstein Edition Sefer Hachinuch #1 / Book of Mitzvos, Brooklyn, NY, 2012 – General Introduction page xl.
[9] A comprehensive review of Rabbi Chavel’s works appeared in his “Peirush Rashi Al HaTorah” first printed in 1982 https://tablet.otzar.org/#/book/155543/p/1/t/1/fs/0/start/0/end/0/c
[10] Rabbi Chavel was not familiar with the Proops Amsterdam 1764 edition of the Chumash cited above and thought the first Chumash printed with the Sefer HaChinuch was the one of Frankfurt an der Oder of 1783. I assume he would have leveled the same criticism at the Amsterdam edition. The Bibliography of the Hebrew book notes this fact about the 1764 edition:

.ספר החינוך נדפס כאן לראשונה “אחר סדר הפסוקים” ולא לפי הסדר שקבע המחבר (עשין לבד ולאוין לבד). וכן נדפס ברוב ההוצאות הבאות. עיין במבוא של הרב חיים דוב שאוועל לספר החינוך, ירושלים תשי”ב, עמ’ כ-כא, שציין את השינויים שנעשו במהדורת תקמ”ג, שינויים אלו נעשו

[11] Here is the Shaar Blatt from Rabbi Chavel’s edition:

[12] An example would be Mitzvot 99-104. Both the order and the numbers are changed:

[13] Here are some examples of some modern editions which have it the “new” way:

[14] At the end of his introduction, he writes,  עַל כֵּן רָאִיתִי טוֹב אֲנִי הַדַּל בְּאַלְפִּי, תַּלְמִיד הַתַּלְמִידִים שֶׁבִּזְמַנִּי, אִישׁ יְהוּדִי מִבֵּית לֵוִי בַּרְצְלוֹנִי, לִכְתֹּב הַמִּצְוֹת עַל דֶּרֶךְ הַסְּדָרִים וְכַסֵּדֶר שֶׁנִּכְתְּבוּ בַּתּוֹרָה זוֹ אַחַר זוֹ ….and yet he still grouped them the way he did.

Rashi Devarim 26:17-18….. הֶאֱמַ֖רְתָּ and הֶאֱמִֽירְךָ֣

Eli Genauer

Rashi provides two explanations for a word in the Torah. Some scholars maintain that Rashi was not the source of the second explanation, rather it was derived from a “Taus Sofrim”. A close look at the manuscript witnesses reveals that the second explanation most likely did originate with Rashi. 

Devarim 26

17. אֶת־ה’ הֶאֱמַ֖רְתָּ הַיּ֑וֹם לִהְיוֹת֩ לְךָ֨ לֵֽאלֹֹֹֹֹקים וְלָלֶ֣כֶת בִּדְרָכָ֗יו וְלִשְׁמֹ֨ר חֻקָּ֧יו וּמִצְוֺתָ֛יו וּמִשְׁפָּטָ֖יו וְלִשְׁמֹ֥עַ בְּקֹלֽוֹ׃

 18. ה’ הֶאֱמִֽירְךָ֣ הַיּ֗וֹם לִהְי֥וֹת לוֹ֙ לְעַ֣ם סְגֻלָּ֔ה כַּאֲשֶׁ֖ר דִּבֶּר־לָ֑ךְ וְלִשְׁמֹ֖ר כָּל־מִצְוֺתָֽי

Rashi:

:האמרת … האמירך. אֵין לָהֶם עֵד מוֹכִיחַ בַּמִּקְרָא, וְלִי נִרְאֶה שֶׁהוּא לְשׁוֹן הַפְרָשָׁה וְהַבְדָּלָה — הִבְדַּלְתָּ לְךָ מֵאֱלֹהֵי הַנֵּכָר לִהְיוֹת לְךָ לֵאלֹהִים וְהוּא הִפְרִישְׁךָ אֵלָיו מֵעַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ לִהְיוֹת לוֹ לְעַם סְגֻלָּה, וּמָצָאתִי לָהֶם עֵד וְהוּא לְשׁוֹן תִּפְאֶרֶת כְּמוֹ (תהלים צ”ד) יִתְאַמְּרוּ כָּל פֹּעֲלֵי אָוֶן

האמרה, האמירך are words for the meaning of which there is no decisive proof in Scripture. It seems to me, however, that they are expressions denoting “separation” and “selection”: “You have singled Him out from all strange gods to be unto you as God — and He on His part, has singled you out from the nations on earth to be unto Him a select people”. And I have found a parallel (lit., a witness) to it where it bears the meaning “glory”, as in (Psalms 94:4): “All wrongdoers glory in themselves”. (Sefaria translation)

We are faced with the following issues

1. First Rashi says that he cannot find a word in Tanach similar האמרת … האמירך אֵין לָהֶם עֵד מוֹכִיחַ בַּמִּקְרָא, and he is therefore compelled to give his own interpretation וְלִי נִרְאֶה
2. Rashi then seems to do an about face and says that he actually did find a comparable word in Tanach וּמָצָאתִי לָהֶם עֵד. The Sefer Yosef Da’as terms this a Stirah.
3. The textual witness that Rashi finds for האמירך is in Tehillim. On that word in Tehillim, Rashi gives an explanation and refers you to Ki Savo where he says the meaning is the same as his interpretation of וּמָצָאתִי לָהֶם עֵד . There is a similar situation with Rashi’s interpretation of that word in Chagigah 3a and on Berachos 6a. On the other hand, in Gittin 57a, we find Rashi explaining our Pasuk in Ki Savo the same as his וְלִי נִרְאֶה Pshat here. We need to understand the relationship between the Rashi in Devarim and the Rashi on Tehillim. We need to understand the various Gemaros that explain either the Pasuk in Tehillim or the Pasuk in Devarim. We also need to understand why Rashi did not use the interpretation of Onkelos for the words האמרת ,האמירך which is taken directly from the Gemara in Chagigah.
4. When we look at the various manuscripts of Rashi on this Pasuk we find a wide diversity of texts. Both the Sefer Yosef Da’as (Prague 1609) and Wolf Heidenheim (Chumash Me’Or Eynayim 1821) say that the words starting from וּמָצָאתִי לָהֶם עֵד were not written by Rashi but were added later on by a student.[1] A study of the many Rashi manuscripts available today puts this conclusion into question

האמרת … האמירך. אֵין לָהֶם עֵד מוֹכִיחַ בַּמִּקְרָא, וְלִי נִרְאֶה שֶׁהוּא לְשׁוֹן הַפְרָשָׁה וְהַבְדָּלָה — הִבְדַּלְתָּ לְךָ מֵאֱלֹהֵי הַנֵּכָר לִהְיוֹת לְךָ לֵאלֹהִים וְהוּא הִפְרִישְׁךָ אֵלָיו מֵעַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ לִהְיוֹת לוֹ לְעַם סְגֻלָּה, וּמָצָאתִי לָהֶם עֵד וְהוּא לְשׁוֹן תִּפְאֶרֶת כְּמוֹ (תהלים צ”ד) “יִתְאַמְּרוּ כָּל פֹּעֲלֵי אָוֶן”

The above seems to be the standard text of this Rashi. We find evidence of this entire text including the words “וּמָצָאתִי לָהֶם עֵד” going back to Lisbon 1491, Venice 1524 and Sabionneta 1557:

Lisbon 1491

Venice 1524 ( and 1547)

Sabionetta 1557

Some “newer” Chumashim have the thought starting with וּמָצָאתִי לָהֶם עֵד in parentheses:

Amsterdam 1901-A.S Onderwijzer – (The Dutch translation of Rashi also has this portion in parentheses)

Chumash Torah Temimah- Vilna -1904

The Artscroll Stone Chumash has the words “דבר אחר” immediately preceding the word “וּמָצָאתִי” all in parentheses.

I have also seen it recorded with just the דבר אחר in parentheses. 

The Sefer Yosef Da’as (Cracow 1608) concludes that the words starting from וּמָצָאתִי לָהֶם עֵד were not written by Rashi[2] ״רק איזה תלמיד כּתבו על הגליון והמדפיס חשב שהם דברי רש״י״ 

This is also the conclusion of Wolf Heidenheim:

Chumash Meor Einayim, Rödelheim : 1821 (ed. Wolf Heidenheim)

Heidenheim echoes the words of the Yosef Daas[3]:

What was the Original Girsa of Rashi?

Here is some background on the manuscript known as Leipzig 1. It was not available to Yosef Da’as, Wolf Heidenheim or later on, to A J. Berliner and to Artscroll Saperstein.

From Chachmei Tzarfat HaRishonim by Prof. Avraham Grossman.[4]

עמ’ 187 :כלי עזר חשוב לבירור הנוסח המקורי של פירוש רש”י לתורה הוא כתב-יד לייפציג  .פירוש רש”י לתורה שבכתב-יד זה הוא ככל הנראה הנוסח הקרוב ביותר על המקור שכתב רש”י, המצוי כיום בידינו, אף שגם בו יש השלמות מאוחרות ושיבוש העתקה. בשולי פירוש רש”י לתורה שבכתב-יד זה נרשמו הגהות רבות ערך של תלמידו ר’ שמעיה, ונידון בהן בפירוט בסקירת מפעלו של ר’ שמעיה

 עמ’ 188 :ר’ מכיר העיד פעמים הרבה שהחזיק בידיו את כתב היד של פירוש רש”י לתורה שבו כתב ר’ שמעיה בעצמו את הגהותיו

. עמ’ 191 :מדבריו של ר’ שמעיה עולה כי לא זו בלבד שרש”י בעצמו הכניס תקונים לפירושיו והגיהם, אלא שביקש גם ממנו לעשות כן

 “הגהות רבינו שמעיה ונוסח פירוש רש”י לתורה” –  תרביץ ס׳ (תשנ״א)

” לדעתי ראוי [כ”י ליפזיג 1] להיחשב כמקור החשוב ביותר המצוי כיום בידינו וככלי העזר העיקרי לכל חקירה בשאלת הנוסח של פירוש רש”י לתורה”

This is how it is recorded in Leipzig 1. The order is reversed and Lashon Tiferet comes first followed by Lashon Havdalah. 

(The entire page.)

 .יז-יח האמרת, האמירך – לשון תפארת כמו יתאמרו כל פעלי און אין להם עד במקרא, ולי נר’ שהם לשון המשכה והבדלה הם, הבדלתו מאלקי הנכר להיות לך לאלקים, והוא הפרישך אליו מעמי הארץ להיות לך לעם סגולה 

We find that the interpretation that Rashi seems to give as an afterthought, is now the first interpretation.                                                                            

Berlin 1221- Has only לשון תפארת

                                                                  האמרת, האמירך – לשון תפארת כמו יתאמרו כל פעלי און 

On the other hand, Munich 5 has only Lashon Havdalah with no Lashon Tiferes – the complete opposite of Berlin 1221.

Because of its age (1194) another important manuscript is Oxford UCC 165 ( Neubauer 2440). It records the Rashi the same as Munich 5.

To summarize: Lepzig 1 has both comments with Lashon Tiferes first. Berlin 1221 has only Lashon Tiferes and Munich 5 and Oxford UCC 165 only have Lashon Havdalah.[5]

An analysis of other manuscripts by Al HaTorah yields the following, along with a possible approach to reconciling the textual variances. .

From Al Hatorah.org:

10 ה    10ה הדיון בהמשך של “אין להם עד… לעם סגולה” חסר בכ”י ברלין 1221, וינה 23, וינה 24 

בכ”י פרמא 181, מינכן 5, פריס 155, ברלין 1222, וטיקן 94, ליידן 1, המצב הפוך, וחסר “לשון תפארת כמו יתאמרו כל פעלי און” (בפרמא 181 הוא נוסף בגיליון אחר “לעם סגולה”, ובברלין 1222 הגיליון סומן לאחר “האמרת והאמירך” וכפי שהוא מופיע בטקסט בלייפציג 1). בכ”י ויימר 652 “מצאתי להם עד לשון תפארה יתאמרו כל פועלי און” מופיע בסוף הפירוש לאחר “לעם סגולה”, וכן באופן מקוטע בפריס 154. כ”י פריס 49 דומה לכ”י לייפציג. ועיין במחלוקתם של א’ טיוטו בתרביץ ס”א:א’ עמ’ 92-91 וא’ גרוסמן בתרביץ ס”א:ב’ עמ’ 308.
יש שתי דרכים שבהן ניתן להסביר ולשחזר את התהליך שאירע בפירוש רש”י כאן:
(א) הפירוש הראשון (“לשון תפארת”) הוא של רש”י עצמו, והפירוש השני (“לשון המשכה / הפרשה והבדלה”) הוא תוספת של ר”י קרא. אפשרות זו נתמכת ע”י כ”י מוסקבה 1628 – עיין דברינו על פירוש ר”י קרא לדב’ כ”ו:י”ז-י”ח.
(ב) שני הפירושים הסותרים נכתבו ע”י רש”י עצמו. הפירוש הראשון (“לשון תפארת”) הוא של רבותיו של רש”י, והפירוש השני (“לשון המשכה / הפרשה והבדלה”) הוא של רש”י עצמו. אפשר שכ”י פרנקפורט 19 תומך באפשרות זו. שם כתוב: “האמרת, האמירך – לשון תפארת כמ’ יתאמרו כל פועלי און וכמ’ בראש אמיר כך הורו מורים [אולי צ”ל “מורי”]. ואני אומ’ שאין להם עד במקום [צ”ל “במקרא”]. ולי נראה שהוא לשו’ הפרשה והבדלה, הבדלתו לך מאלהי הנכר להיות לך לאלהים, והוא הפרישך אליו להיות לו לעם סגולה.”

Analysis of Gemaros and of Rashi in Tehillim:

The first Pshat וְלִי נִרְאֶה in the standard Rashi is that the Jewish people have set aside Hashem to be there G-d (לְשׁוֹן הַפְרָשָׁה וְהַבְדָּלָה ) and He has set aside the Jewish people as His people. This is similar to the explanation Rashi gives for our Pasuk on Gittin 57b. The Gemara tells the story of the woman whose seven sons refused to bow down to an idol, each one quoting a Pasuk to back up his decision.  

‘אתיוהו לאידך אמרו ליה פלח לעבודת כוכבים אמר להו כתוב בתורה (דברים כו, יז) את ה’ האמרת וגו’ וה’ האמירך היום וגו

They then brought in yet another son, and said to him: Worship the idol. He said to them: ( I cannot do so,) as it is written in the Torah: “You have האמרת  Hashem this day to be your G-d…and Hashem has האמירך you this day to be a people for His own possession” (Deuteronomy 26:17–18)

Rashi explains   האמרת – ייחדת – set aside . This is very similar to the Lashon he uses in Ki Savo of הִבְדַּלְתָּ לְךָ מֵאֱלֹהֵי הַנֵּכָר לִהְיוֹת לְךָ לֵאלֹהִים

On the other hand, the Pasuk where he writes וּמָצָאתִי לָהֶם עֵד וְהוּא לְשׁוֹן תִּפְאֶרֶת כְּמוֹ 

 “יִתְאַמְּרוּ כָּל פֹּעֲלֵי אָוֶן”:, in Tehillim 94:4..there Rashi gives his second explanation to our words in Ki Savo

The thought expressed in Tehillim is how long will Hashem tolerate the fact that evildoers brag about their actions. It is clear that יִֽ֝תְאַמְּר֗וּ means “praise themselves”. 

עַד־מָתַ֖י רְשָׁעִ֥ים ׀ יְהוָ֑ה עַד־מָ֝תַ֗י רְשָׁעִ֥ים יַעֲלֹֽזוּ׃

How long shall the wicked, O LORD, how long shall the wicked exult,

יַבִּ֣יעוּ יְדַבְּר֣וּ עָתָ֑ק יִֽ֝תְאַמְּר֗וּ כָּל־פֹּ֥עֲלֵי אָֽוֶן׃

shall they utter insolent speech, shall all evildoers pride themselves?

Rashi in Tehillim  

יתאמרו. ישתבחו כמו (דברים כו) האמרת והאמירך

In Ki Savo, Rashi seems to say he can’t find a witness for this word  הֶאֱמַ֖רְתָּ in all of Mikra and then Rashi himself in Tehillim explains the word as meaning something very similar to לְשׁוֹן תִּפְאֶרֶת  and refers you to the Pesukim in Devarim. And in Tehillim, he gives a different explanation for the Pasuk in Ki Savo than he gives on Gittin 57b.

Chagigah 3a on the bottom of the page

עוד דרש (דברים כו, יז) “את ה’ האמרת היום”,” וה’ האמירך היום “אמר להם הקב”ה לישראל אתם עשיתוני חטיבה אחת בעולם ואני אעשה אתכם חטיבה אחת בעולם

Rashi comments

האמרת – שבחת כמו יתאמרו כל פועלי און (תהילים צ״ד:ד׳) ישתבחו, שדרכן צלחה:

Again we have the word יתאמרו or האמרת meaning something like לְשׁוֹן תִּפְאֶרֶת (שבחת ) and not לְשׁוֹן הַפְרָשָׁה וְהַבְדָּלָה

Rashi seems to be giving us a translation of the word האמרת as opposed to the Gemara’s Drasha on this word

However, Onkelos uses the word  חֲטַבְתָּin his translation of the word He’emircha

יָת הּ’ חֲטַבְתָּ יוֹמָא דֵין לְמֶהֱוֵי לָךְ לֶאֱלָק’ וְלִמְהַךְ בְּאָרְחָן דְּתָקְנָן קֳדָמוֹהִי וּלְמִטַּר קְיָמוֹהִי וּפִקּוּדוֹהִי וְדִינוֹהִי וּלְקַבָּלָא בְמֵימְרֵיהּ:

והּ’ חָטְבָךְ יוֹמָא דֵין לְמֶהֱוֵי לֵיהּ לְעַם חַבִּיב כְּמָא דִי מַלִּיל לָךְ וּלְמִטַּר כָּל פִּקּוּדוֹהִי:

חטיבה  is like in the words “Chotaiv Aitzecha.”

The word חטיבה is translated by Steinsaltz as a “single entity.”

This is Steinsaltz’s translation of the Gemara:

You have made Me a single entity in the world, (as you singled Me out as separate and unique). And (therefore) I will make you a single entity in the world, (as you will be a treasured nation, chosen by God.)

This is more in line with the idea of

לְשׁוֹן הַפְרָשָׁה וְהַבְדָּלָה — הִבְדַּלְתָּ לְךָ מֵאֱלֹהֵי הַנֵּכָר לִהְיוֹת לְךָ לֵאלֹהִים וְהוּא הִפְרִישְׁךָ אֵלָיו מֵעַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ לִהְיוֹת לוֹ לְעַם סְגֻלָּה

We have a similar outcome in Rashi in Berachos 6a where the Pasuk in Ki Savo is also quoted. There too Rashi explains the word האמיר in our Pasuk in Ki Savo as meaning praise.

ומי משתבח קודשא בריך הוא בשבחייהו דישראל אין דכתיב את ה׳ האמרת היום וכתיב וה׳ האמירך היום 

Is the Holy One, Blessed be He, glorified through the glory of Israel?  Yes as it is stated: “You have האמרת, this day, that the Lord is your God, And it states: “And the Lord has האמירך, this day,…(Deuteronomy 26:17–18).

Rashi comments on the word האמרת:

האמרת – לשון חשיבות ושבח כמו יתאמרו כל פועלי און (תהילים צ״ד:ד׳) ישתבחו

The Lubavitcher Rebbe summarizes some of the problems with the Rashi text as we have it, and adds another issue as to why Rashi didn’t explain the word as coming from the Shoresh “Omair” as Ibn Ezra did.

Likutei Sichos Chelek Tes – The Sicha is in Yiddish only – This is a summary in Hebrew:

קשה לפרש ש”האמרת” הוא לשון אמירה (כי האמירה אינה בכל יום), ו”אין להם עד מוכיח במקרא” שיכריח לפרש כן. אך “ומצאתי להם עד” שהוא לשון תפארת

ברש”י (כ”ו י”ז): “האמרת והאמירך: אין להם עד מוכיח במקרא. ולי נראה שהוא לשון הפרשה והבדלה, הבדלתו לך מאלוקי הנכר להיות לך לאלוקים והוא הפרישך אליו מעמי הארץ להיות לו לעם סגולה. ומצאתי להם עד והוא לשון תפארת כמו יתאמרו כל פועלי און”

.1 צריך להבין איך אומר בהתחלה ש”אין להם עד מוכיח”, הרי מיד אח”כ אומר “ומצאתי להם עד”? 

.2ומדוע אינו מפרש שהוא לשון אמירה – כמו שפירש ר’ יהודה הלוי והובא באבן עזרא – שאז יוצא שיש להם ריבוי מוכיחים במקרא

והביאור: רש”י מדגיש ש”אין להם עד מוכיח במקרא”, זאת אומרת שישנה קושי לפרש ש”האמרת” הוא לשון תפארת ואמירה, ורק אם היה להם עד מוכיח – שיכריח לפרש כן – הי’ מפרש כן. והקושי שישנו בפירוש אמירה הוא שהפסוקים “האמרת היום” “וה’ האמירך היום” באים בהמשך להפסוק “היום הזה ה’ אלוקיך מצוך” – שקאי על כל יום, וא”כ אי אפשר לפרש ש”האמרת” הוא לשון אמירה, כי רק כשהנהגת בנ”י הוא כראוי פועלים שה’ יאמר שהוא רוצה להיות להם לאלוקים, ורק כשהנהגת ה’ עם בנ”י הוא באופן ניסי, אומרים בנ”י שהם עם סגולה. ולכן מפרש רש”י “לשון הפרשה והבדלה”, דענין זה אינו תלוי בהנהגת בנ”י (דגם כשאינם עושים רצונו של מקום יודעים שה’ הוא אלוקיהם(

This is how this Pasuk is presented in the Artscroll Saperstein Rashi[7]:

The comments end (4.) with “Yosef Da’as concludes they were interpolated by someone other than Rashi” indicating that Rashi in Ki Savo does not include the concept of האמרת meaning לְשׁוֹן תִּפְאֶרֶת. This is directly in contradiction to Leipzig 1. 

What does Avraham Berliner in Zechor L’Avraham (Berlin 1867) say?                            

Firstly, Berliner states that the author of Yosef Da’as only had one Rashi manuscript and therefore his (Berliner’s) rendering of Rashi is more accurate.

This is Berliner on our Pasuk:

In his introduction, Berliner mentions all the Kisvei Yad he had and includes Munich 5 but he does not include Leipzig 1. 

In conclusion, if you look at many early manuscripts, the idea that האמרת means לְשׁוֹן תִּפְאֶרֶת is definitely there. As a matter of fact, in Lepzig I it comes first and other manuscripts, (such as Berlin 1221) don’t even have the explanation of הבדלה. Both Leshonos could come from Rashi. 

[1] The Artscroll Sapirstein Rashi quotes Yosef Da’as as the last of its comments.
[2] The author of Yosef Da’as:

המחבר היה מחכמי פראג שנולד בפראג בשנת ש”ם ונפטר שם בשנת תי”ד. הוא היה תלמידם של גדולי חכמי פראג, והוא מביא הרבה תורה מהם בספר, וכן הוא כותב מאחרי השער שהספר נדפס בהסכמתם. המחבר עמל לזקק את הטעויות שנפלו בפירוש רש”י על התורה, ולמטרה זו השתמש בחומשים עתיקים, וכן בכתב יד עתיק מהמאה ה-14 שמצא בלובלין. ליד כל תיקון והערה, הוא מציין את המקור

[3] A.J. Rosenberg also weighs in on this (Judaica Press Rashi in English) as follows:

[4] There is a Machlokes on Grossman’s opinion which is still open 308 ‘ועיין במחלוקתם של א’ טיוטו בתרביץ ס”א:א’ עמ’ 92-91 וא’ גרוסמן בתרביץ ס”א:ב’ עמ.
[5] Munich 5 is also supposed to be quite authoritative. Here is a quote from Prof. Marc B. Shapiro cited in Hakirah 26:

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 סלחתי ישמיענו that is recited in Yom Kippur Neilah. ArtScroll, in its Yom Kippur Machzor, p. 746, tells us that סלחתי ישמיענו was written by “R’ Shlomo ben Shmuel of the thirteenth-century.”

[6] Explanation of Ibn Ezra. First, he says it a language of exaltation. (similar to Shavachta and Lashon Tiferes)  Then he quotes Rabbi Yehuda HaLevi as saying the source is ויאמר . Ibn Ezra prefers this explanation. This is referred to by the Lubavitcher Rebbe as the most direct explanation. 

האמרת. מלשון גדולה וקרוב מגזרת בראש אמיר ויאמר רבי יהודה הלוי הספרדי ,נשמתו עדן, כי המלה מגזרת ויאמר והטעם כי עשית הישר עד שיאמר שהוא יהי’ אלהיך גם הוא עושׁה לך עד שאמרת שתהי’ לו לעם סגולה ויפה פירש והנה תהיה מלת האמרת פעל יוצא לשנים פעולים

The Hebrew word “bespoke” carries connotations of exaltation. Compare, “in the top of the uppermost bough” [Isaiah 17: 6]. The Spaniard Rabbi Yehudah HaLevy — may his soul rest in Gan Eden — explained how the word is related to the verb “to say”: the sense of the passage is that you have done all that is proper, to the point that you cause other people to say “He will be your God”; and He will likewise act toward you so as to cause you to say that you will be His treasured people. According, the verb “to bespeak” takes both a direct and an indirect object.
[7] Artscroll’s sources are given as follows:

Variant readings [of the text of Rashi] are either enclosed in braces or appear in the footnotes, along with the sources from which Rashi drew his commentary. Among the earliest printed editions (incunabula) from which the variant readings are taken are the editions printed in: Rome (undated, possibly 1470), Reggio di Calabria, Italy (also called defus rishon, “first printed edition”; 1475); Guadalajara, Spain (Alkabetz edition, 1476); Soncino, Italy (1487); Zamora, Spain (1487). The Venice (Bomberg) edition of 1517-18 was the first edition of Mikraos Gedolos with Scripture, Targum, Rashi and all the standard commentaries. In the course of researching the variant readings of Rashi, we found valuable resources in the recently published Yosef Hallel (Rabbi Menachem Mendel Brachfeld; Brooklyn; 5747/1987); and, for the Bereishis volume, the ongoing Chamishah Chumshei Torah – Ariel/Rashi HaShalem (Jerusalem, vol. 1 – 1986, vol. 2 – 1988, vol. 3 – 1990). 

Rashi BaMidbar 22:9- “Taut Sofrim” or “Agadot Chalukot?”

By Eli Genauer

Summary: Here we find polar opposite approaches to a Stirah in Rashi’s commentary to the Torah. One approach maintains that Rashi used two different Midrashic sources for his contradictory comments, and the other solves the Stirah by saying that one of the comments attributed to Rashi is actually a Taut Sofrim.

There is a very perplexing verse towards the beginning of Parshat Balak:

ט:וַיָּבֹא אֱלֹקים אֶל-בִּלְעָם וַיֹּאמֶר מִי הָאֲנָשִׁים הָאֵלֶּה עִמָּךְ:

Balak sent messengers to Bilaam asking him to curse the Jewish people. Bilaam retired for the night and Hashem approached him at that time. “Who are these men with you?”, Hashem asked. Certainly, the Omniscient One knew the answer to that question. We look to Rashi to explain the motivation for G-d’s question and surprisingly we find it all the way back in Parshat Breishit (Breishit 3:9). Adam and Chava had just disobeyed Hashem by eating the forbidden food and they heard Hashem walking in the Garden. Hashem asked Adam “where are you?”( איכה), the answer to which Hashem already knew. Rashi comments as follows:

“איכה“. יוֹדֵעַ הָיָה הֵיכָן הוּא אֶלָּא לִכָּנֵס עִמּוֹ בִּדְבָרִים, שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא נִבְהָל לְהָשִׁיב אִם יַעֲנִישֵׁהוּ פִּתְאוֹם (בראשית רבה),[1] וְכֵן בְּקַיִן אָמַר לוֹ אֵי הֶבֶל אָחִיךָ (בראשית ד), וְכֵן בְּבִלְעָם מִי הָאֲנָשִׁים הָאֵלֶּה עִמָּךְ (במדבר כ“ב), לִכָּנֵס עִמָּהֶם בִּדְבָרִים, וְכֵן בְּחִזְקִיָּה בִּשְׁלוּחֵי מְרֹאדַךְ בַּלְאֲדָן:

Hashem knew where Adam was, but He asked this in order to open up a conversation with him that he should not become confused in his reply, if He were to pronounce punishment against him all of a sudden……..Similarly with Bilaam, “who are these men with you?” — to open up a conversation with them.

Rashi in Breishis emphasizes that the reason Hashem asked Bilaam “who are these men with you” was to draw him into a conversation, thereby making him more comfortable in speaking to Him.

However in Parshas Balak (BaMidbar 22:9) Rashi seems to have a different take[2] on why Hashem asked “Who are these men with you?”

מי האנשים האלה עמך. לְהַטְעוֹתוֹ בָא, אָמַר פְּעָמִים שֶׁאֵין הַכֹּל גָּלוּי לְפָנָיו, אֵין דַּעְתּוֹ שָׁוָה עָלָיו, אַף אֲנִי אֶרְאֶה עֵת שֶׁאוּכַל לְקַלֵּל וְלֹא יָבִין (תנחומא):

“Who are these men with you?” G-d’s question led Bilaam to conclude “Sometimes, not everything is revealed before Him, for He is not always omniscient. I will find a time when I am able to curse, and He will not realize it.” The words “ לְהַטְעוֹתוֹ בָא” with which Rashi begins, seem to indicate that Hashem was trying to mislead Bilaam into thinking that He was not all knowing, and not to draw him into a conversation . Here are a few attempts to translate לְהַטְעוֹתוֹ בָא.

1. “To cause him to err did He come” – Linear Translation of Rashi – S.S. and R Publishing Company Brooklyn, NY 1949
2. “It came to delude him“ – Chabad website for Parshat HaShavua based on translation of Rabbi A.J Rosenberg for Judaica Press
3. He intended to delude him (1) – Chumash with Rashi of A.M. Silbermann and M. Rosenbaum, Jerusalem 1934

The Silbermann Chumash directs you to a footnote which reflects the approach of many of the Meforshai Rashi on the contradiction between the two comments of Rashi. “Rashi on Genesis 3:9 has already pointed out that sometimes G-d puts a seemingly superfluous question to a person to open a conversation. One of the instances he cites there is Bilaam. The heathen soothsayer did not understand the purpose of this question, and it suggested to him that G-d was not omniscient at all times”

The Artscroll Sapirstein Rashi does a much better job in encapsulating this approach by replacing “cause him to err” with “gave him room to err”.[3] Artscroll adds a footnote summarizing the approach of Gur Aryeh by saying that Hashem intended to gently open the conversation with Bilaam, but worded the question in an ambiguous way. Bilaam could have understood the question as Hashem’s way of entering into a conversation with him, but he instead chose to interpret it to indicate that Hashem was not always aware of all the details of a situation.

Professor Yeshayahu Maori Z”L in his book “Sugyot B’Nusach HaMikrah U’B’Parshnato”[4] advances the idea that the Stirah stems from the fact that Rashi accessed two different Midrashic sources, one for his comment in Breishit and one for his comment in BaMidbar.[5] This is based on the idea which was advanced by Rav Eliyahu Mizrachi that sometimes Rashi used “Agadot Chalukot”.[6] The author of “Tzaidah L’Derech” (Prague 1623) sees this case as one where Rashi used “Agadot Chalukot” and that is why Rashi’s comment on “מי האנשים האלה עמך “is different in Breishit and BaMidbar.[7] Here are the words of Rav Yissachar Ber Eilenburg (1570-1623) author of “Tzaideh L’Derech”

אלא מאי אית לך למימר שאגדות חלוקות הן ורש״י רגיל לפרש פעמים אחר אגדה אחת ופּעמים אחר אגדה אחרת כמו שכתב הרא״ם ז״ל בהרבה מקומות אין מספר

“But what can you say but that Rashi used different Aggadot here. Rashi is accustomed to explaining matters by using one Aggadah here and another Aggadah there as Rav Eliyah Mizrachi has stated in many places”[8]

Rav Yosef Ben Yissachar Miklish (1580-1654) is one who is very bothered by the fact that this comment in Rashi seemingly contradicts what he wrote in his commentary on Hashem’s question of “where are you?” to Adam ( Breishit 3:9).[9] He addresses this Stirah in a completely different manner. He maintains that he had a manuscript which was 315 years old in which the words “לְהַטְעוֹתוֹ בָא” did not exist, nor did it contain the words that followed. Rather, it had a completely different Girsa in this Rashi. The website Alhatorah.org attributes a very similar Girsa to a manuscript called Berlin 1221[10] along with material from other manuscripts.[11] It also notes that Wolf Heidenheim attributed the comment to Rav Yosef Kara.

היידנהיים ייחס את התוספת לר׳ יוסף בר׳ שמעון ז״ל,[12] ואפשר שכך היה כתוב בכ״י שלפניו, אך בכל עדי הנוסח שבידינו, אין ייחוס מפורש לר״י קרא. והשווה רש״י בראשית ג׳:ט׳.[13]

The comment attributed to Rashi in this manuscript in general matches the words quoted by Yosef Daat for “his” version of Rashi. The main thrust is that Hashem addressed Bilaam in a way to engage him in the way one addresses someone to make them feel comfortable כשיבוא לתפוס את האדם מתוך דבריו, and not to delude him (ְלהַטְעוֹתוֹ)

Berlin 1221

https://digital.staatsbibliothek-berlin.de/werkansicht?PPN=PPN666097542&PHYSID=PHYS_0160&DMDID=DMDLOG_0001

Yosef Daat

The author of Yosef Daat even speculates that the words “לְהַטְעוֹתוֹ בָא” are a Taut Sofrim inserted by printers “to cause people to err” as Rashi himself would never have written such a comment.

כי גירסת “לְהַטְעוֹתוֹ בָא” היא גירסא בא בדפוס להטות את הבריות

However, the overwhelming majority of manuscripts contain the wording of Rashi as we have it today, something which the author of Yosef Daat would not have known.[14] Here is the important manuscript known as Leipzig 1.[15]

The three Defusim Rishonim (Rome, Alkabetz and Reggio di Callabrio) do not contain the Girsa cited by Yosef Daat. There is no indication in any early printed edition from the 1400’s and 1500’s that any other Girsa existed.

Avraham Berliner (Berlin 1867) normally notes the Girsaot of Yosef Daat but here completely ignores it.[16]

There was another approach taken a bit over 400 years ago in trying to explain what Rashi meant when he wrote לְהַטְעוֹתוֹ בָא and that is to insert an explanatory remark in parentheses embedded into the text of Rashi. The first time I could find it in a printed edition was in one printed in Hanau 1611-1614. This is how it looks:

)ר“ל ישרים דרכי ה‘ צדיקים ילכו בם ופושעים יכשלו בם כוונת הש“י שאמר מי האנשים היתה לטובה ליכנס עמו בדברים כמ“ש רש“י בפ‘ בראשית בתיבה איכה אך בא לבלעם לטעות כי הוא טעה)

This portion in the parentheses is clearly not part of Rashi and it makes no attempt to hide it as it states clearly כמ“ש רש“י בפ‘ בראשית בתיבה איכה. It tries to explain what Rashi means by first quoting a Pasuk, (ישרים דרכי ה׳… ) something Rashi could have done himself if he so desired.

The Hanau edition contained many other comments like this. The Bibliography of the Hebrew Book notes that this was an edition which featured additions to Rashi from some of the Meforshai Rashi.

ככל אשר נדפס בויניציאה [ש”ן-שנ”א] -מעבר לשער הקדמה קצרה (“אל עין הקורא”) ובה רשימת “כמה מעלות” שבהוצאה הנוכחית. בין השאר נאמר שהחומש והתרגום ובפרט פירוש רש”י הוגהו “מתוך חומש של … רּ ישעיה הלוי” (הורוויץ, בעל השל”ה).

After the Hanau edition, the embedded comment in parentheses had a very strong run. I consulted my personal collection of Chumashim from the 1700’s and 1800’s and, beginning with a Chumash printed in Amsterdam in 1729 to one printed in Pressburg in 1868, 13 have the comment and 6 do not. The comment also appears in practically all the Chumashim from the 1900’s that I looked at. This might be because many of them are photo offset of what is known as the Netter Mikraot Gedolot of Vienna of 1859 which served as the model for many editions that followed.[17]

Vilna Netter 1859

It is included on the Chabad website for the portion of the week, but only on the English side!

However, many new editions such as Oz Vehadar, Mosad HaRav Kook and HaMaor (2005) do not include this parenthetical comment, a practice which returns this Rashi to its original form.[18]

[1] בראשית רבה י״ט: י״א

Rosh Hashana 23b – The Missing Map – Were We Deprived of a Map Drawn by Rashi?

Eli Genauer

The Mishnah on Rosh Hashana 22b discusses the signal fires which were lit to inform the residents of Bavel of the Kiddush HaChodesh in Yerushalayim.

מַתְנִי׳: בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיוּ מַשִּׂיאִין מַשּׂוּאוֹת…..

MISHNAH: Initially, after the court sanctified the new month they would light torches on the mountaintops, from one peak to another, to signal to the community in Babylonia that the month had been sanctified.[1]

The Mishnah continues

וּמֵאַיִן הָיוּ מַשִּׂיאִין מַשּׂוּאוֹת?

And from which mountains would they light the torches?

מֵֵהַר הַמִּשְׁחָה לְסַרְטְבָא וּמִסַּרְטְבָא לִגְרוֹפִינָא וּמִגְּרוֹפִינָא לְחַוְורָן וּמֵחַוְורָן לְבֵית בִּלְתִּיןִ..…

The Daf Yomi Advancement Forum provides us details of the places mentioned.[2]

From HAR HA’MISHCHAH- the Mount of Olives (to the east of the Old City of Yerushalayim)

To SARTAVA- a mountain in the Jordan valley

To GEROFINA- most probably a tower or rise heightened by Agrippa II near Ceasarea Philippi (modern-day Banias in northern Eretz Yisrael)

To CHAVRAN- Auran, a mountain located in the area of Aurantis east of the Jordan River

To Bait Baltin, which will be discussed on 23a and b. It is identified as BIRAM, a city on the border of Eretz Yisrael and Bavel

The Gemara 23a (on the bottom) and 23b (on the top) continues (Davidson Talmud):

וּמֵאַיִן הָיוּ מַשִּׂיאִין מַשּׂוּאוֹת כוּ׳ וּמִבֵּית בִּלְתִּין, מַאי בֵּית בִּלְתִּין? אָמַר רַב זוֹ בֵּירָם

What is this place called Beit Baltin? Rav said: This is the town called Biram.

The Gemara continues

תַּנְיָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר אַף חָרִים וּכְיָיר וּגְדֹר וְחַבְרוֹתֶיהָ אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי בֵּינֵי וּבֵינֵי הֲווֹ קָיְימִי אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי לְהָךְ גִּיסָא דְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל הֲווֹ קָיְימִי מָר חָשֵׁיב דְּהַאי גִּיסָא וּמָר חָשֵׁיב דְּהַאי גִּיסָא

It is taught in a Baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Torches were also lit at Ḥarim, and Kayar and Geder, and its neighboring places. There are those who say that the places added by Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar are located between the places mentioned in the Mishnah, whereas there are those who say that they are located on the other side of Eretz Yisrael, on the side nearer Babylonia. The Sage in the Mishnah enumerates the places found on one side of Eretz Yisrael, whereas the Sage in the Baraita enumerates the places found on the other side.

Rashi comments on the relationship of Eretz Yisroel to Bavel[3]

באידך גיסא – של א“י לצד בבל, שני צדדים של א“י נמשכין לצד בבל:

On one side – of Eretz Yisroel towards Bavel. There are two sides of Eretz Yisroel which extend to Bavel

The language of Rashi is a bit unclear. It would be helpful if he included a map so we could visualize it better. As you can see, there is no map included in the authoritative text of the Vilna Shas.

A missing map of Eretz Yisroel and Bavel

The first printed edition of Massechet Rosh Hashana was done by the Soncino family in Pesaro, Italy circa 1511.

It shows the two sides of Eretz Yisroel as it extends towards Bavel, with the places in the Mishnah listed in order on the top side, and the places listed in the Baraita on the bottom side. The map most correctly should have been placed underneath the Rashi which begins with the words באידך גיסא.

https://digitalcollections.jtsa.edu/islandora/object/jts%3A395714#page/59/mode/1up

What the map shows is the stretch of land which extended all the way from Eretz Yisroel to Bavel, and that there were two routes to get there.[4] The places named are different because the Tanna of the Mishna discusses the route on one side of Eretz Yisroel, and the Tanna of the Baraita discusses another route. Please note that even though it seems on the map that Bavel is to the west of Eretz Yisroel, this is only a convention of modern maps.[5] Clearly Rashi knew that Bavel was to the east as Eretz Yisroel was known as Ma’arava.

The first complete edition of the Talmud printed by Daniel Bomberg in Venice (c.1520-1523) retained the space for the diagram but left it blank.[6] This was carried through in his later printing of Rosh HaShana.

https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=21208&st=&pgnum=47

The Giustiani edition (Venice 1548) also left a blank space

The space disappeared from the next printed edition, that of Basel 1579.

https://www.e-rara.ch/bau_1/content/zoom/22850827

It reappeared in an edition printed in Cracow in 1603, and it was now in the right place.

The next complete edition of the Talmud was printed in Amsterdam by Immanuel Benveniste (c.1644-1648). It did not contain a space, this despite its claim that it was patterned after the Giustiani edition of 1548.

The map (or an empty space) did not appear in the influential Amsterdam edition of 1717 and that most likely doomed it to oblivion in the printed Gemarot which followed[7].

Dr. Aharon Ahrend (“Rashi’s Commentary on Tractate Rosh Hashana: A Critical Edition,” Bialik Institute Jerusalem 2014) lists a number of manuscripts as his sources (3 complete, many partial) and does not indicate that this map is in any of them.[8]  The Pesaro edition is the only one with this map. (p.218, last line”, במקור ״מ״ נוסף followed by a reproduction of the map- מקור ״מ״ is Pesaro).

The conclusion one might reach is that since no other manuscript contained this map, the manuscript on which the Pesaro edition was based had this map added by someone after Rashi’s time, perhaps in the margin to help the reader understand Rashi.

Is The Pesaro Edition of Masechet Rosh HaShana the Only Source For This Map?

Let us turn to the commentary of the Malechet Shlomo on Rosh Hashana. This commentary was first introduced in a new edition of Mishnayot printed by the Romm printers in Vilna. The Romm printers explain how they were able to access this heretofore unpublished manuscript which was found among the papers of the Chida.

The author of the Malechet Shlomo was Rav Shlomo HaAdani (1567, Saana, Yemen-1625 Chevron, Eretz Yisroel) who wrote this commentary while he was in Chevron. He states that his two main teachers were Rav Betzalel Ashkenazi (the author of Shita Mekubetzet) and Rav Chaim Vital.

In this first printed edition of his commentary on our Mishna in Rosh Hashana we find a map very similar to the one in the Pesaro edition, only it is missing the cities on the top listed in the Mishna.[9] (Possibly because his “Kazeh” applies only to the cities on the other side of Eretz Yisroel and not the ones mentioned in the Mishnah).

This is the Ktav Yad of Rav Shlomo HaAdani from his commentary on Rosh Hashana:

Library of the Emanuel Ringelblum Jewish Historical Institute Warsaw Poland Ms. 267

We mentioned that Rav Shlomo HaAdani was a Talmid of Rav Betzalel Ashkenazi. In his own copy of Rosh Hashana ( Bomberg Venice 1521) Rav Betzalel added many notes. Here is what 23b looks like in his Gemara:

The Russian State Library, Moscow, Russia Ms. Guenzburg 816

https://web.nli.org.il/sites/NLI/English/digitallibrary/pages/viewer.aspx?&presentorid=MANUSCRIPTS&docid=PNX_MANUSCRIPTS990001466800205171-1#|FL77457080

You can see that he drew in some sort of map in the empty space.

On the top of that same page, we find another map which he drew. The words on the top left are כל זה בספר יד.ⁱ[10] The Vilna Shas in its Acharit Davar says that he would do that quite often.

The Bach also drew in his Gemara, a Bomberg Rosh Hashana of 1531. The National Library of Israel owns a Gemara which was copied from the personal copy of the Bach.

The National Library of Israel, Jerusalem, Israel Ms. Heb. 24°174

Paleographic Note

אין זה אוטוגרף המחבר, ככל הנראה הועתק מהש“ס שלו

Here is how it looks

https://web.nli.org.il/sites/NLI/English/digitallibrary/pages/viewer.aspx?&presentorid=MANUSCRIPTS&docid=PNX_MANUSCRIPTS990044116070205171-1#|FL78289377=

There seems to have been a concerted attempt in the 1500’s and 1600’s to retain some sort of map in the Rashi. Whether it appeared in the “original Rashi” we will likely never know.

[1] Sefaria, the William Davidson Talmud, English translation of Rav Steinsaltz, here.
[2] There are many other opinions as to where these places were.
[3] The Girsa in the Dibur HaMatchil in Rashi is slightly different than in the text of our Gemara.
[4] Rashi seems to indicate that Pumpedita (alternatively Nehardea) could be seen from the border of Eretz Yisroel whereas the Meiri indicates that once the fires got to the Israel/Bavel border, they were relayed from mountain to mountain in Bavel until Pumpedita.
[5] Please see Marc Shapiro’s article on map orientation which recently ran on the Seforim Blog here.

Sukkah 4a “What’s Wrong with This Picture?”

By Eli Genauer

This post is is l’zecher nishmas my uncle and rebbe, Rabbi Sam Genauer ZT”L whose yahrtzeit is the second day of Av. Rabbi Genauer was a talmid of Rabbi Moshe Soloveichik at RIETS.

מסכת סוכה ד׳ עמוד א׳

The maximum height of a Sukkah is twenty Amot. The Gemara discusses a situation where the Sukkah is slightly more than twenty Amot high and one builds a raised platform inside the Sukkah.

היתה גבוהה מעשרים אמה ובנה בה איצטבא כנגד דופן האמצעי על פני כולה ויש בה הכשר סוכה כשרה

If a Sukkah was more than twenty Amot high and one built a platform (איצטבא) in it opposite the middle wall, and the platform (איצטבא) is the minimum area required for a Sukkah to be kosher, (7 Tefachim by 7 Tefachim) the Sukkah is kosher

ומן הצד, אם יש משפת איצטבא לכותל ד׳ אמות, פסולה, פחות מארבע אמות ,כשר.

And along the side wall: If there are four (or more) Amot from the edge of the platform to the opposite wall, it is Pasul. However, if there are less than four Amot, it is kosher

The Vilna Shas has two pictures embedded within the text of the Gemara which illustrate these cases. The first picture illustrates the case of איצטבא כנגד דופן האמצעי על פני כולה and the second picture illustrates the case of מן הצד איצטבא.

Updated Illustration in Vilna HaChadash (2006)

Were these two pictures part of the original text of the Talmud as written down by Rav Ami and Rav Asi?

The website Hachi Garsinan which belongs to the Freidberg Manuscript Society (https://bavli.genizah.org/?lan=heb&isPartial=False&isDoubleLogin=False) has a number of manuscripts of Gemarah Sukkah and none of them have these diagrams included within the text. They include:

British Library Harley 5508
Munich Codex heb. 140
Munich Codex heb. 95
JTS Rab. 218, JTS Rab. 1608
Oxford heb. 2. 51

It is extremely unlikely that any other written manuscript of this section of Talmud contained these two images.[1]

Nevertheless, we do get the impression from the Vilna Shas that these diagrams are part of the body of the Gemara.

The Vilna HaChadash edition (2006) even ties the two modified pictures 1) and 2) to specific words in the Gemara.

Where do these two pictures belong, if not in the body of the Gemara text?

It turns out that there are three sources (a manuscript, the Dfus Rishon of Soncino Pesaro, and Chochmat Shlomo) which point to these illustrations properly being included in Rashi’s commentary. We will then look at how they ended up in the text of the Gemara.

In a manuscript identified as JTS, New York Rab. 832 (JTS, New York, Ms. 6648), pictures illustrating איצטבא בדופן האמצעי ואיצטבא מן הצד are placed alongside two other illustrations on the next page.

Dr. Aharon Arend attributes these pictures to the Rashi on 4a.[2]

Additionally, the Dfus Rishon of Soncino Pesaro (c.1515) places the diagrams in the body of Rashi’s commentary. One diagram is situated next to the Rashi which speaks about the איצטבא being in the middle and the other diagram is in the Rashi which speaks about the איצטבא being on the side.

Bomberg Venice 1521 left empty spaces in the same two comments of Rashi. Bomberg and Pesaro clearly saw them as separate drawings and situated them in the same comments of Rashi:

This Chochmat Shlomo (Cracow 1582) agreed that the two illustrations belonged in Rashi and placed them in the Rashi immediately preceding the first one of Soncino Pesaro (which is the beginning of the Halacha):

Berman Frankfurt an der Oder 1698 used the same shapes as Chochmat Shlomo but, despite clear instructions in Chochmat Shlomo of where to place the pictures (דבור המתחיל דופן האמצעי), inserted them in the text of Gemara.

Amsterdam 1717 finally placed the two pictures where they are today.[3]

The Amsterdam imprint imputed much importance to the Chochmat Shlomo of Rav Shlomo Luria (MaHarshal) in fixing the text and format of its edition.

On the Shaar Blatt it lists the Chochmat Shlomo first in terms of what sources were used for Hagahot:

Additionally, the publisher, Judah Aryeh Leib ben Josef Samuel in his introduction to Masechet Shabbat, writes how corrupt the text of printed editions had become in his time, but that he was able to correct his edition based on the editing work of MaHarshal, MaHarsha and MaHaram Lublin. There is no diagram in Meier Einai Chachamim of MaHaram Lublin or Chiddushei Halachot of MaHarsha on this Gemara so it is most puzzling as to what source he used to overrule the instructions from MaHarshal of whom he writes ״ונתן ה׳ חכמה בלב שלמה הוא ניהו רבינו הגדול הגאון מהרש״ל זצ״ל שהגיה רוב התלמוד״

It seems as if these diagrams were somehow destined to be embedded within the text of the Gemara which is studied today, but I feel that a reference letter or number should be placed above these pictures, and an explanatory note placed on the side of the Gemara which says

בדפוס ראשון הציורים מופיעים ברש״י, ומהרש״ל גם כותב שהם שייכים לרש״י

I recommend specifically that such a notation be placed in the הגהות וציונים section of the next Oz Vehadar edition of Masechet Sukkah just as there are other references to דפוס ראשון and מהרש״ל on the same Amud.[4]