Vayikra Perek 23 Rashi on Pasuk 35 or 27 A “Misplaced” Comment of Rashi

Vayikra Perek 23 Rashi on Pasuk 35 or 27

A “Misplaced” Comment of Rashi

Eli Genauer

The 23^rd Perek of Sefer Vayikra speaks about the festivals, and ends with the discussion of Yom Kippur (Pesukim 27-32) and Succot (Pesukim 33-43). In Pasuk 27 Yom Kippur is called a “מִקְרָא־קֹ֑דֶשׁ” (a holy convocation/assembly)

ויקרא כ”ג:כ”ז

(כז) אַ֡ךְ בֶּעָשׂ֣וֹר לַחֹ֩דֶשׁ֩ הַשְּׁבִיעִ֨י הַזֶּ֜ה י֧וֹם הַכִּפֻּרִ֣ים ה֗וּא מִֽקְרָא־קֹ֙דֶשׁ֙ יִהְיֶ֣ה לָכֶ֔ם וְעִנִּיתֶ֖ם אֶת־נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶ֑ם וְהִקְרַבְתֶּ֥ם אִשֶּׁ֖ה לַיהֹוָֽה׃

In Pasuk 35 Succot is also called a ִ מִקְרָא־קֹ֑דֶש

ויקרא כ”ג:ל”ה

(לה) בַּיּ֥וֹם הָרִאשׁ֖וֹן מִקְרָא־קֹ֑דֶשׁ כׇּל־מְלֶ֥אכֶת עֲבֹדָ֖ה לֹ֥א תַעֲשֽׂוּ

Rashi comments as follows on the words מִקְרָא־קֹ֑דֶש

מקרא קדש – קדשיהו בכסות נקייה ובתפילה. וכל שאר ימים טובים, במאכל ובמשתה וכסות נקייה ותפילה

“Sanctify it with clean clothing and prayer, and on other festivals, with food and drink, with clean clothing and with prayer”

There is a disagreement among various editions of Chumash and Rashi on which מקרא קדש Rashi writes his comment. Logically, it belongs on Pasuk 27 which speaks about Yom Kippur. Rashi is telling us that the way you make Yom Kippur into a מקרא קדש is by wearing fine clothes and saying special prayers, and on other festivals, you observe them with food and drink, with clean clothing and with prayer.

This is the Artscroll Stone Chumash (Brooklyn 1993) which place the comment in Pasuk 27

However, there are other Chumashim which do not place the comment in Pasuk 27, and wait until Pasuk 35 to record it. This means that Rashi is telling us that on Succot, we sanctify the day with nice clothing and prayer, and on other festivals, we add in food and drink. It seems to be quite illogical.

This is Chumash Habahir (Jerusalem 2005)

What is the source for recording Rashi’s comment on Pasuk 35?

It turns out that most Rashi manuscripts and early printed editions have it that way.

A good example is the authoritative manuscript Leipzig 1 which looks like this:^[1]

The manuscript has the comment on the word “אַ֡ךְ” in Pasuk 27, followed by a few more comments continuing on to Pasuk 31, where a comment on the words “וכל מלאכה וגומ’” appears. This is followed by the comment on “מקרא קדש”. Those words only appear afterwards in Pasuk 35 meaning that Rashi wrote his words of “קדשיהו בכסות נקייה ובתפילה” as a comment on the festival of Sukkot.

The website Al Hatorah uses Leipzig 1 as its base text for Rashi, yet it positions this Rashi as a comment on Pasuk 27 which speaks of Yom Kippur. It notes though that this Dibur Hamatchil appears in Leipzig 1 and in other Eidei Nusach after the comment in Pasuk 31

דבור המתחיל זה מופיע בכ”י לייפציג 1 ובעדי נוסח אחרים לאחר הביאור על פסוק ל”א

I looked at many other manuscripts and found it to be true in the following 34 cases. I did not find one manuscript which had the comment on Pasuk 27

Oxford CCC 165 (Neubauer 2440), Munich 5, Hamburg 13, London 26917 (Neubauer 168) (1272), Paris 155, Berlin 121, Vatican ebr. 4, Vatican ebr.18, Vatican ebr.33, Vatican ebr. Vatican ebr. 94, Vatican ebr. 480, London 19665 (Margoliouth 174), London 22122 (Margoliouth 178) Oxford-Bodley Opp. 34 (Neubauer 186), Casanatense 2848 (1284), Berlin Qu 514 (1289), Florence Plut.III.03, Oxford Bodleian 69, Hamburg 32, Vatican urb. Ebr 1, Vienna codex Hebr. 220, Vienna Codex Hebr.3, London Harley 5708, Bavarian State Library, Cod.hebr. 148, HUC JCF 1(called Cincinnati 51), Paris 49, Paris 154, Parma 2708, Parma 3204 (DeRossi 181), Cambridge University Library, Ms. Add. 1828, Casantense 2988, and Sassoon 369.^[2]

Most of the early printed editions of Rashi also have this comment on Pasuk 35. A good example is Rome 1470 where the comments on “וְהַֽאֲבַדְתִּ֛י” (pasuk 30) and “כׇּל־מְלָאכָ֖ה” (pasuk 31) precede that of “מקרא קדש” (presumably Pasuk 35)

The rest of the incunabula ( the 9 editions printed before 1500) present it that way except for Napoli 1492 where it is presented as part of Pasuk 27^[3].

The most influential edition of the 16^th century was the Bomberg Mikraot Gedolot Venice edition 1524-26 and it was recorded in the same manner. The comment on מקרא קדש comes after the comment on כָּל־מְלָאכָ֖ה of Pasuk 31, and before עֲצֶ֣רֶת on Pasuk 36. It is clearly assigned to מקרא קדש of Pasuk 35.

Many who analyzed Rashi’s work struggled with the issue of the manuscripts placing the comment on Pasuk 35, and logic dictating that it belonged on Pasuk 27. Chief amongst that group was the dean of supercommentators Rav Eliyahu Mizrachi (רא״ם)

He writes at first that logically Rashi is commenting on the words “מקרא קדש” which are written describing Yom Kippur (Pasuk 27)

שאין פירוש מקרא קדש האמור ביום הכפורי’ כפירוש מקרא קדש האמור בשאר ימים טובים כי פירוש מקרא קדש האמור ביום הכפורים הוא שתקדשהו בכסות נקייה ובתפלה לבד מאחר שאין בו אכילה ושתייה ופירוש מקרא קדש האמור בשאר ימים טובים הוא שתקדשהו באכילה ובשתייה ובכסות נקייה ובתפלה

“The interpretation of מקרא קדש on Yom Kippur is not the same as the interpretation of מקרא קדש on the other ימים טובים, because the interpretation of מקרא קדש on Yom Kippur is that you sanctify it with a nice clothing and prayer alone, since there is no eating or drinking on it, and the interpretation of the מקרא קדש on the other ימים טובים is that you sanctify it with eating and drinking, with nice clothing and prayer”

But Rav Eliyahi ran into the roadblock of the Girsa of all the manuscripts he had seen and it really bothered him

וגם בזה לבי נוקפי שהרי בכל הנוסחאות שראיתי בכולן כתוב הפירוש של מקרא קדש אחר הפירוש של והאבדתי ואחר הפירו’ של כל מלאכה

“But that makes my heart pound, because in all the Nuschaot I have seen, the interpretation of מקרא קדש is written after the interpretation of ” וְהַֽאֲבַדְתִּ֛י” (Pasuk 30) and after the interpretation of כָּל־מְלָאכָ֖ה ( Pasuk 31) .”

He nevertheless concludes that the comment belongs on Pasuk 27

אלא ע”כ לומר דהאי מקרא קדש שפיר’ בו הוא הכתוב ביום הכפורים שהוא משונה מכולם

“but rather one must say that this מקרא קדש, which is the one written on Yom Kippur, is the one which is different.”

Notice how he emphasizes that all the Nuschaot he has seen have it as the Dibur HaMatchil after “והאבדתי” (Pasuk 31) making “מקרא קדש” Pasuk 35. (regarding Succot)

However, there are a number of Rashi supercommentators who try to explain why this comment of Rashi does belongs after Rashi’s comments on Pasuk 30 and 31 (seemingly when it talks about Succot), such as Gur Aryeh( Maharal MiPrague 1512-1609).^[4] The Yeriot Shlomo, which is a commentary on the Mizrachi by Maharshal (1510-1573), also addresses the issue.^[5] Rav Shabtai Meshorer Bass places Rashi’s comment in Pasuk 35, and in his commentary Siftei Chachamim (Amsterdam 1680) advances this resolution:

בכסות נקיה. והא דמהפך רש”י הקרא דמקרא קדש דהיה לו לפרש לעיל קודם פירוש והאבדתי וקודם כל מלאכה לא תעשו. וי”ל דלעיל לא יכול לפרש קדשהו בכסות נקיה וכו’ דלמא הא דכתיב מקרא קדש לאסור הלילה כיום לעניין עשיית מלאכה וכרת, אבל עכשיו דכתיב כל מלאכה לא תעשו שהוא מיותר ובא ללמד ולהזהיר על מלאכת לילה כיום ע”כ האי מקרא קודש בא ללמד על קדשהו בכסות נקיה וכו’

“Fine clothing. That which Rashi turned around the verse “מקרא קדש “? He should have explained it [where it first appears in verse 27] before explaining “והאבדתי ” and before ” כל מלאכה לא תעשו?” The answer is: He could not explain above” קדשהו בכסות נקיה,” because perhaps when it wrote ” מקרא קדש ” this was to make the night forbidden like the day regarding work and “.כרת”. But now that it is written ” כל מלאכה לא תעשו ” which is superfluous, it is to teach and warn that work is forbidden by at night as well as by during the day, therefore this ” מקרא קדש ” must be teaching that we ” קדשהו בכסות נקיה.”

How did Rashi’s comment on “מקרא קדש” fare throughout printing history?

As mentioned, 8 out of 9 incunabula placed the comment on Pasuk 35, as did Bomberg’s Mikraot Gedolot of 1524-26. Going forward, the same was true for Augsburg 1533, Bomberg 1548, Sabionetta 1557, Riva di Trento 1561, Cracow 1587, and Mantua 1589

In fact, most editions through the 19^th century continued to place the comment in Pasuk 35. Clearly, they were following the manuscripts and the earlier printed editions. Examples of these were Hanau 1611-14‬‬‬‬, Amsterdam 1670, Amsterdam 1701, Venice 1702, Berlin 1703, Amsterdam Proops 1721, Livorno 1807, Ostroh 1827, Warsaw 1854, Vienna 186, Zhitomir 1867, and Vienna 1875

Here is Berlin 1703

The earliest more modern edition I could find the comment placed in Pasuk 27 was the 1787 Devek Tov Hamburg edition.

Another example is Furth 1812

Avraham Berliner in Zechor L’Avraham (Berlin 1867) does not assign a Pasuk number to it but records it after Pasuk 31. In note 30 he writes that it belongs in Pasuk 27, before the comment of והאבדתי which appears in Pasuk 30.

More recently, Oz Vehadar Rashi Mevuar of 2016 does not assign מקרא קדשׁ to Pasuk 35 but just to somewhere after Pasuk 31 but before Pasuk 36. It also adds the words ביום הכפורים to emphasize that the comment is made about Yom Kippur

However it admits that ביום הכפורים is not found in any early edition

Here is an example of the words “ביום הכפורים” appearing in parentheses

Malkah Shel Torah (Jerusalem 1990)

Chumash Torat Chaim (Jerusalem 1993) published by Mosad HaRav Kook maintains that it should be in the Yom Kippur section and places it in Pasuk 27, but admits that the manuscripts and early printed editions do not support this placement.

The Artscroll Elucidated Rashi, Siftei Yeshainim section (Rahway, NJ 2025) writes on this matter

שם: ד”ה מִקְרָא קֹדֶשׁ. בכמעט כל הנוסחאות (כ”י ודפוס, חדשים גם ישנים), דיבור זה כתוב להלן אחרי ד”ה “וכל מלאכה”, וא”כ לפי הסדר נראה שמוסב על פסוק לה (גבי סוכות). אבל לפי הענין נראה ברור שדברי רש”י מוסבים על יוה”כ, וכן כתב הרא”ם כאן, לכן כתבנו אותו כאן. וע’ בדברי המפרשים בפסוק לה.

Rashi Hashalem Mechon Ariel 2019) places it in Pasuk 35 but blames the incorrect placement on the mistake of printers.

Note: I believe it is difficult to assign blame to the printers after looking at all the manuscripts which placed the comment on Pasuk 35.

To summarize:

Rashi made a comment regarding Yom Kippur that one sanctified it as a מקרא קדש through fine clothing and prayer, whereas other ימים טובים are sanctified additionally with food and drink.
The comment of Rashi on מקרא קדש is clearly focused on Yom Kippur
For some reason, all the manuscripts and early printed editions of the Chumash (except for one) place the comment of Rashi in the section dealing with Succot (Pasuk 35)
Rav Eliyah Mizrachi says that logically the comment belongs in the Yom Kippur section (Pasuk 27) but notes that all the manuscripts have it in the Succot section ( Pasuk 35)
Printers chose between three courses of action in terms of where they placed the comment.
Place the comment in Pasuk 35 as it appears in all the manuscripts and rely on supercommentaries to explain why it is there.
Place it in Pasuk 27 which speaks about Yom Kippur and where the comment seemingly belongs
Place it in Pasuk 35 and, even though they appear in no manuscript, add the words ביום הכפורים with or without parentheses

The final word on this perhaps belongs to the Rashi scholar Dr. Aharon Ahrend, who wrote me

“I agree that once you examine many manuscripts, it strengthens the hypothesis that the original text was like the manuscripts. But we must always remember that we do not have Rashi’s own manuscript, and therefore when there is something strange, it can still be attributed to an error by an ancient copyist, from whom others copied.”

Notes

The website Al Hatorah includes this information on the manuscript named Leipzig 1

“The popularity of Rashi’s Torah commentary and the tendency of medieval scholars and copyists to add to it their marginal glosses combined to create enormous variation between different manuscripts and editions of the commentary. As a result, it is often difficult to determine how Rashi’s original text read, and whether words, sentences, and even entire passages from the commentary, were written by Rashi himself or are merely later accretions… On this backdrop, the importance of the Leipzig 1 (Universitätsbibliothek Leipzig, B.H.1) manuscript of Rashi can hardly be overstated. This manuscript was written in the 13th century by R. Makhir b. Karshavyah, who states that he produced it from a copy of the commentary transcribed and annotated by Rashi’s own secretary, R. Shemayah. R. Makhir not only copied Rashi’s base commentary from R. Shemayah’s manuscript, but he also reproduced many of the marginal glosses contained in R. Shemayah’s text, a good number of which R. Shemayah explicitly attributes to Rashi himself. MS Leipzig 1 is, thus, an extremely valuable textual witness which comes tantalizingly close to the original source. In addition, its glosses shed significant light on Rashi’s thought processes and the development of his commentary.” ↑
There were two manuscripts which had the comment after Pasuk 31, but left out the last part of it which is “וכל שאר ימים טובים”

Paris 154 Berlin 1221

↑
This is Napoli 1492. It perhaps indicates that there were manuscripts from which it took this Girsa which had it this way

↑
גור אריה ויקרא כ”ג:ל”ו (Maharal Mi’Prague 1512-1609)

https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=42846&st=&pgnum=193

קדשהו בכסות נקייה כו’. פירש רש”י דבר זה שלא במקומו אחר “כל מלאכה”, ועוד, דהוי ליה לפרש זה למעלה בחג המצות (פסוק ז). ויראה טעמו, דלמעלה לעולם כתיב איסור המלאכה אצל “מקרא קדש”, ויש לפרש “מקרא קדש” לקדש אותו שלא לעשות בו מלאכה, ובזה הוא מקודש, ו”מלאכת עבודה לא תעשו” פירושו ד”מקרא קדש”, שרוצה לומר בזה הוא קדש – “כל מלאכת עבודה לא תעשו”. אבל ביום הכפורים לא כתיב (בפסוק כז) “מקרא קדש” אצל המלאכה, על כרחך האי “מקרא קדש” מילתא אחריתי הוא, דלא איירי במלאכה, לכך פירש “מקרא קדש” ‘קדשהו כו’. לכך כאשר פירש כאן “וכל המלאכה וכו’ ”, הוקשה לו דלא כתיב “וכל מלאכה” גבי “מקרא קדש”, לכך פירש ד”מקרא קדש” אין פירושו שהוא קדוש ממלאכה, רק ‘קדשהו בכסות נקיה וכו”. אף על גב דהוי מצי לפרש זה על “וכל מלאכה” דלעיל (פסוק כח), אין זה קשיא, דלא פירש עליו מידי, אבל כאן (פסוק לא) פירש על “כל מלאכה” ‘לרבות כו”, פירש אחריו “מקרא קדש” ‘קדשהו כו” ↑
יריעות שלמה ויקרא כ”ג:כ”ז -בד”ה מקרא קדש וכו’ דמה נשתנה וכו’ (רא”ם).

https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=67451&st=&pgnum=142&hilite=

ולא הוצרך לומר זה, דבלאו הכי אי אפשר לומר שה’מקרא קדש’ הזה שפירש בו, הוא הכתוב בחג הסוכות (פסוק לה), דאם כן למה נחלק חג הסוכות משאר ימים טובים לענין מאכל ומשתה.

ואפשר דלכך פירש”י מקרא קדש (פסוק לה) אחר שפירש קרא דכל מלאכה וגו’ (פסוק לא), משום דבזולת זה אפשר לפרש מקרא קדש האמור ביום הכיפורים (כאן) לענין איסור עשיית מלאכה אפילו אוכל נפש, מה שאין כן בשאר ימים טובים דמותרין במלאכת אוכל נפש לכן מפרש זה אחר קרא דכל מלאכה וגו’. כן נראה לי ↑

Eli Genauer: Breishit 9:18 – Noach’s Family or Noach’s Drunkenness?

Breishit 9:18 – Noach’s Family or Noach’s Drunkenness?

Eli Genauer

וַיִּֽהְי֣וּ בְנֵי־נֹ֗חַ הַיֹּֽצְאִים֙ מִן־הַתֵּבָ֔ה שֵׁ֖ם וְחָ֣ם וָיָ֑פֶת וְחָ֕ם ה֖וּא אֲבִ֥י כְנָֽעַן׃

“The sons of Noach who came out of the ark were Shem, Cham, and Yefet; and Cham was the father of Canaan.”

Rashi:

וחם הוא אבי כנען. לָמָּה הֻצְרַךְ לוֹמַר כָּאן? לְפִי שֶׁהַפָּרָשָׁה עֲסוּקָה וּבָאָה בְּשִׁכְרוּתוֹ שֶׁל נֹחַ שֶׁקִּלְקֵל בָּה חָם וְעַל יָדוֹ נִתְקַלֵּל כְּנַעַן, וַעֲדַיִן לֹא כָתַב תּוֹלְדוֹת חָם, וְלֹא יָדַעְנוּ שֶׁכְּנַעַן בְּנוֹ – לְפִיכָךְ הֻצְרַךְ לוֹמַר כָּאן וְחָם הוּא אֲבִי כְנָעַן:

AND CHAM IS THE FATHER OF CANAAN – Why is it necessary to mention this here? Because this section goes on to deal with the account of Noah’s drunkenness when Cham sinned, and through him, Canaan was cursed. Now, as the generations of Cham have not yet been mentioned, we therefore would not know that Canaan was his son. Therefore, it was necessary to state here that “Cham is the father of Canaan”.

This is how it appears in the Artscroll Elucidated Rashi^[1]:

Yet the author of the Sefer Yosef Da’at (Prague 1609) writes that he had a Rashi manuscript and other Sefarim which substituted the word “במשפחתו “for the word” בְּשִׁכְרוּתוֹ”. He also writes that it was the Nusach of Ramban ( when quoting this Rashi).

בדבור המתחיל וחם הוא אבי כו׳, נכתב בצדו על מלת ״בשכרותו״ שבפנינו, וברש״י קלף בס״א (בספרים אחרים) במשפחתו של נח. והיא נוסחאות הרמב״ן ז״ל.

The text of Rashi would then read:

וחם הוא אבי כנען. לָמָּה הֻצְרַךְ לוֹמַר כָּאן? לְפִי שֶׁהַפָּרָשָׁה עֲסוּקָה וּבָאָה במשפחתו שֶׁל נֹחַ שֶׁקִּלְקֵל בָּה חָם וְעַל יָדוֹ נִתְקַלֵּל כְּנַעַן…..

Why is it necessary to mention this here? Because this section goes on to deal with the account of Noah’s family when Cham sinned, and through him, Canaan was cursed…

As mentioned by Yosef Da’at, one of the Eidei Nusach for having the word במשפחתו is Ramban, who quotes Rashi’s comment. The website Al Hatorah notes, that this Nusach appears in the following Ramban manuscripts: Parma 3255, Munich 138, Fulda 2, Paris 222, and Paris 223. It also appears that way in the first printed edition of Ramban, that of Rome (printed before 1490).

This is the Ramban manuscript known as Munich 138 where Ramban quotes Rashi:

Here is the text of Ramban in the Rome edition where he writes(פ׳(רוש) ר״ש (למה:

Al Hatorah also notes that the word במשפחתו, appears in the text of a Rashi manuscript, Parma 3115, (which it seems was close to the text with which the Ramban worked) before it was “corrected”.

וכן בכ”י פרמא 3115 של פירוש רש”י (שהוא כנראה קרוב לנוסח שעמד בפני רמב”ן) לפני שתוקן בין השיטין

Ktav Yad Parma 3115, for Rashi:

Al Hatorah then notes that most Rashi manuscripts have בְּשִׁכְרוּתוֹ

בכ”י רומא 44, פרמא 2978, דפוס ליסבון: “בשכרותו”, וכן ברוב כ”י של רש”י.

Parma 2978 is the Ramban on Noach which has “בשכרותו”:

For Rashi on this Pasuk ,Al HaTorah records that most Rashi manuscripts have בְּשִׁכְרוּתוֹ, but Regio di Calabria, as quoted by Ramban and the Rashi manuscript Parma 3115, have it as במשפחתו.

וחם הוא אבי כנען – למה הוצרך לומר כאן. לפי שהפרשה עסוקה בשכרותו של נח שקלקל בה חם, ועל ידו נתקלל כנען, ועדיין לא כתב תולדות חם, ולא ידענו שכנען בנו. לפיכך הוצרך לומר כאן: וחם הוא אבי כנען.

ב. כן בכ״י אוקספורד 165, מינכן 5, אוקספורד 34, לונדון 26917, ברלין 1221, דפוס רומא.

דפוס ריגייו: ״במשפחתו״, וכן מופיע בפירוש רמב״ן כאן ברוב עדי הנוסח, בכ״י פרמא 3115

. אפשר שכך היה הנוסח גם בכ״י המבורג 13.

In Zechor L’Avraham (Berlin 1867 and Frankfurt am Main 1905), there is no indication of alternative Nusach. Avraham Berliner does not mention the alternative Nusach of Yosef Daat, the Dfus Rishon or the Girsa of Ramban:

In Yosef Hallel (Brooklyn 1987), Rabbi Brachfeld notes that the Dfus Rishon of Regio Callabrio (1475) has the word במשפּחתו. He does not note that it is the Lashon of the Ramban but seems to think that במשפחתו is a better reading because of his questions on the use of בְּשִׁכְרוּתוֹ:

In Rashi HaShalem Mechon Ariel ( Jerusalem 1987), there is no indication of another Girsa but in the back of the Sefer, it does have it as part of Defusim Rishonim:

Defusim Rishonim:

Guadalajara (1476) Reggio di Calabrio (1475) Rome (1470)

It is interesting to note that the Alkbetz edition is what is known as the Mahadura Sefardit ( according to Professor Yeshayahu Sonne and Dr Yitzchak Penkower), and yet it has בשכרותו. The same goes with Hijar(1490), which generally copies Alkabetz.

Oz Vehadar Rashi HaMevuar 2008, has במשפחתו in the back in Chilufai Girsaot, noting that it is the Girsa of Ramban and the Dfus Rishon:

Rabbi Isaac Chavel in his edition of Rashi ( Mosad HaRav Kook – 2007 edition) notes that Defus Rishon of Rashi (Regio di Calabria) has ,במשפחתו and this Lashon also appears in the text of Ramban as he quotes Rashi. He also says about the use of the word “במשפחתו” that is more correct (“וכן נראה”) based on the Lashon of the Midrash Agadah which places the emphasis on familial relationships of Noach:

What do the manuscripts indicate:

Oxford CCC 165 (Neubauer 2440) – 12^th century

Hamburg 13 (1265), has the word in question rubbed out and changed to בְּשִׁכְרוּתו on the side. It might have originally said במשפחתו:

Oxford-Bodley Opp. 34 (Neubauer 186):

London 26917 (Neubauer 168) (1272):

Berlin 1221:

Vatican Urbinati 1 (1294):

Nuernberg 5 (1297):

How did the text of Rashi in printed editions evolve over time?

The Dfus Rishon of Regio di Calabrio recorded it as במשפחתו. As mentioned, Yosef Da’at noted במשפחתו as a variant reading in a Rashi Klaf and in ,ספרים אחרים and bolstered it with it being the Nusach of Ramban:

Hanau 1611-1614, regularly included the Girsaot of Yosef Da’at so we would have expected it to have had בְּשִׁכְרוּתוֹ and then in parentheses have Sefarim Achairim as במשפחתו. But is doesn’t, and that sealed the fate of that Nusach in terms of it becoming a mainstream Girsa of Sefarim Achairim:

The Netziv in Shemot 40:23 cites a comment of the Ramban in which he quotes Rashi and says that our text of Rashi is different. He proposes that there were two Mahdurot of Rashi, of which Ramban had the first Mahadura and we have the second one. In that second Mahadura, Rashi reversed himself from what he said in the first Mahadura. It is possible that this occurred here- in the first Mahadura, Rashi wrote במשפחתו and that is the Mahadura which Ramban had. Later on, Rashi changed it to בְּשִׁכְרוּתו and that has become the standard Girsa:

Conclusion:

There is a lot of ammunition for the Girsa being במשפחתו:

It is in Dfus Rishon, (indicating either inclusion in a manuscript or taken from Ramban)
It is the Lashon of the Ramban, (this is the main argument)
It has logic behind it (Rabbi Chavel’s and Yosef Hallel’s comments)
It is attested to by Yosef Da’at as being in a manuscript
Parma 3115 originally had “במשפחתו”
Hamburg 13 was altered and could have said במשפחתו

But it did not survive as an alternative Girsa of ספרים אחרים today mainly because the influential edition of Hanau (1611-1614) did not include it.

Sidenote:

Many editions of the Ramban today still attribute the word בְּשִׁכְרוּתוֹ to Rashi even though it is clear that the original Ramban had במשפחתו. This was most likely done to make it conform with the accepted Nusach of Rashi.

Here is Oz Vehadar Jerusalem on Ramban 2015 which has בְּשִׁכְרוּתוֹ but says it is במשפחתו in Defus Rishon:

Here is Peirush HaRamban with Peirush Menachem Tziyon printed in 2019 which also has בְּשִׁכְרוּתוֹ:

There is no comment on this Rashi in the Siftei Yeshainim section ↑

Foie Gras “Fake News”: A Fictitious Rashi and a Strangely Translated Ethical Will

by Ari Z. Zivotofsky

Controversial topics can sometimes lead to contrived sources, i.e. fake news. That is certainly true with the effort by vegetarians to find traditional sources to support their position. In the past I have shown how a booklet claiming Judaism supports vegetarianism was full of misquotes (here here ) and how a “quote” of the Rema was fabricated ( here ). Here I will expose two fake quotes that have been used by vegetarians in the battle against foie gras.

Foie gras (pronounced “fwä-grä, meaning “fat liver” in French) is the fattened liver of a waterfowl that grew to 5-10 times its usual size due to gavage. Foie gras, a delicacy today rightly associated with the French who are indeed by far the largest producers and consumers of it, was for much of history an Ashkenazi Jewish expertise. This luxury item has been the subject of a great deal of controversy in recent years. Until its production was banned in 2003 by the Supreme Court, Israel was one of the leading producers in the world. Within the last year, kosher foie gras has begun to be produced in the US for the first time in history.

The issue driving the current debate is animal welfare, or in the Jewish world, tza’ar ba’alei chaim. For hundreds of years, in traditional Jewish sources “stuffed goose” was indeed controversial, but not because of animal welfare. The debate revolved around potential treifot due to possible damage to the esophagus caused during the feeding process. it was a widespread debate involving the greatest of authorities. The Rema (YD 33:9) notes that in his town they would stuff geese to make schmaltz and they would check the veshet of each bird. Rav Yoel Sirkis (Bach, YD 33) was in favor of banning force feeding because of this potential serious problem. The Aruch Hashulchan (YD 33:37) says they did not do force feeding in his town. The Chochmas Adam (16:10) preferred to ban the gavage process because of the concern for treifot of the veshet, but agreed that if done, it could potentially be kosher. In modern times the Tzitz Eliezer (11:49, 11:55, 12:52) and Rav Ovadia Yosef (Yabia Omer 9:YD:3) came out against foie gras, while Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv was reported as approving the foie gras that was being produced in 2005. The most famous posek to permit stuffed geese was the Chasam Sofer (2:YD:25; Chullin 43b).

Despite the centuries long debate, force feeding geese was extremely common among Ashkenazic Jews. Many of the greatest poskim lived in regions where they would have been personally exposed to the process and yet none of them ever suggested that it was cruel and bordered on tza’ar baalei chaim. The issue was not even raised for discussion until the late 20th century. The only place tzaar ba’alei chaim is mentioned in the context of fattened geese is in the opposite direction – the rabbis were aware that geese used to being fed in this manner would not eat any other way and thus, out of concern for tza’ar ba’alei hayyim, permitted, with certain stipulations, gavage for these geese on Shabbat (Mishna Berurah 324:27). This is as opposed to other chickens and geese, for which this is not permitted.

Despite efforts by some to demonstrate that force feeding geese is cruel and was recognized as such by Jews in previous generations, it’s a common misunderstanding based on a mistranslation that seems to defy explanation, and one of these situations where people keep repeating an error because they didn’t examine the primary source. In contemporary Jewish anti-foie gras literature, two “quotes” are regularly bantered about, even by scholars. One is a “quote” from Rashi and the other from a 14th century ethical will.

Both quotes can be found in the book “The Foie Gras Wars: How a 5,000-Year-Old Delicacy Inspired the World’s Fiercest Food Fight” (2011) by Chicago Tribune reporter Mark Caro. On p. 26 he writes:

“Rashi interpreted the tale to mean that Jews would have to face the music ‘for having made the beasts[geese] suffer while fattening them’.”

And on p. 26-27 he writes:

“In a 14th-century ethical will, a dying man, Eleazar of Mainz, instructs: “‘Now, my sons and daughters, eat and drink only what is necessary, as our good parents did, refraining from heavy meals, and holding the gross liver in detestation’.”

The comment of Rashi sounds like it may indeed be a condemnation of fattening geese. It turns out that Rashi never wrote any such thing. First, the source for this “quote” is Bava Basra 73b and as is well known, on 29a of Bava Basra of our printed texts, there is a note in bold letters in the Rashi column that says: “until here is the commentary of Rashi zt”l, from here on in is the commentary of Rabbeinu Shmuel ben Rav Meir”, ie Rashbam. The first error is therefore that the comment was not written by Rashi but by his grandson.

Nonetheless, even if Rashbam had written that, it would be of significance. But he didn’t.

The comment was made on the 10th of the fantastic, esoteric tales of Rabbah bar bar Chanah. The story is:

תלמוד בבלי מסכת בבא בתרא דף עג עמוד ב

ואמר רבה בר בר חנה: זימנא חדא הוה קא אזלינן במדברא, וחזינן הנהו אווזי דשמטי גדפייהו משמנייהו וקא נגדי נחלי דמשחא מתותייהו, אמינא להו: אית לן בגוייכו חלקא לעלמא דאתי? חדא דלי גדפא, וחדא דלי אטמא. כי אתאי לקמיה דרבי אלעזר, אמר לי: עתידין ישראל ליתן עליהן את הדין.

Rabbah b. Bar Hana also related: We were once travelling in the desert and saw geese whose feathers fell out on account of their [excessive] fatness, and streams of oil [fat] flowed under them. I said to them: ‘Shall we have a share of your [flesh] in the world to come?’ One lifted up its wing, the other lifted up its leg. When I came before R. Elazar he said to me: Israel will be held accountable because of them.

Commenting on the last line, Rashbam commented:

רשב”ם מסכת בבא בתרא דף עג עמוד ב

ליתן עליהם את הדין – שבחטאתם מתעכב משיח ויש להם צער בעלי חיים לאותן אווזים מחמת שומנן.

According to the Rashbam, the Jews are responsible for the suffering of the geese in that the geese had to live extra-long with unnatural fat because the Jews sinned and thereby delayed the coming of the Messiah and the slaughtering of these geese. The Rashbam was discussing a fanciful story involving the suffering of mythical geese whose feathers fall out and whose fat drips off of them, i.e. who were clearly suffering and are different from a typical goose. Such geese he suggests may suffer due to their excessive fat. He makes no mention of the fattening process and says nothing about any suffering during that process or about the suffering of geese that his Jewish neighbors were raising.

And how about the ethical will? Hebrew Ethical Wills (JPS Library of Jewish Classics) (English and Hebrew Edition) [1976], Israel Abrahams (Editor), Judah Goldin (Foreword) is a facsimile edition of the 1926 original. Beginning on p. 207 is “The Ideals of an Average Jew (Testament of Eleazar of Mayence)” and on p. 212 it indeed says: “Now, my sons and daughter, eat and drink only what is necessary, as our good parents did, refraining from heavy meals, and holding the gross liver in detestation.”

From this it is not at all clear why liver should be so disliked, and it is certainly not obvious that he is talking about foie gras. It could be that he simply abhors liver (perhaps because, as Chazal note, it is full of blood). In an effort to better understand, I looked on the other side of the page, at the Hebrew text. And what a shock! It seems that when Israel Abrahams (Reader in University of Cambridge and a Senior Tutor at Jews’ College) translated this text he used some poetic license, likely never suspecting it would be then adopted by the anti-foie gras activists. Here is what the Hebrew found in Abrahams says:

בניי ובנותי פחותו נא מאכילה ושתייה רק כדי צורך. ואל תבזבזו ממון לאכילה ולשתייה. כן היו אבותינו החסידים אוכלים כדי הצורך ולא אכילה גסה ולמלאות כריסן. להיות כל ימיהם כחוש.

No mention whatsoever of liver! It appears that it is not an actual translation. It seems strange that Abrahams fabricated the liver in the English. He says the translation was made on the basis of two Hebrew texts. Maybe he translated straight off of them and the Hebrew in his edition is not accurate. The first is a text that is based in a Munich MS and appears on Moritz Güdemann’s Quellenschriften (Berlin, 1891, reprinted by Philo Press in 1968).

There on p. 296 one finds an almost identical text:

בניי פחותו נא מאכילה ושתייה רק כדי צורך ואל תבזבזו ממון לאכילה ולשתייה. כן היו אבותינו החסידים אוכלים כדי הצורך ולא אכילה גסה ולמלאות כריסן להיות כל ימיהם כחוש

The other manuscript is Bodleian MS cat Neubauer No. 907, fols. 164a-166a (not 166b as Abrahams erroneously wrote) and the relevant section is at the top of 165a (I thank Ezra Chwat for his assistance in obtaining this ms.). As can be seen the text is identical to that found in the Abrahams’ book.

There seemed to be a final possibility. In his introduction, Abrahams notes that a previous translation, into German, had appeared in the journal Jüdische Presse, Berlin 1870, p. 90.

The journal is available here (I thank Sharon Liberman Mintz for finding that link for me). In issue 11 (Sept 9, 1870) a translation appears on the 6th and 7th page of the issue, pages 90-91 of the volume, as can be seen in the figure below.

However, it is only a translation of the first half of the will, ending just before the relevant section. It says that it was to be continued, but unfortunately that was the first year of the journal and the next issue (12) is missing (as are several others such as 3, 7, 9, 10) from the digitized microfilm at that website and I have been unable to locate it in any Israeli library. the translation until that point seems to be accurate and it is hard to ascribe the insertion of the liver to the German translator (I thank Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel and Prof Michael Segal for assistance with the German).

It thus seems clear the liver was inserted into the English transition for some inexplicable reason, but certainly does not appear in this 14th century ethical will.

Once an author is convinced of the authenticity of the sources they often embellish. In the academic work, Food and Morality: Proceedings of the Oxford Symposium on Food and Cookery (2007) edited by Susan R. Friedland, there is a chapter called the foie gras fracas: sumptuary Law as Animal welfare? By Cathy K. Kaufman, a scholar-chef and Adjunct Chef-Instructor, Institute of Culinary Education, in New York City.

On p. 126 she writes:

“The best written evidence for the medieval production of foie gras – and its ambiguous moral status – is found among the writings of the Ashkenazi Jews who spread throughout Europe. Rabbi (sic) Rashi ……”

But in fact we have shown that among the Jewish writings there is ZERO evidence regarding any ambiguous moral status!

Even the well-known American cookbook author Joan Nathan couldn’t avoid this pitfall.

Recently, in her King Solomon’s Table: A Culinary Exploration of Jewish Cooking from Around the World (2017) on p. XXI she wrote:

“Rashi was a thinker who knew both religion and agriculture. He condemned, for example, the force-feeding of geese to produce foie gras ….”.

In 2013, an article in Moment magazine (here) stated:

“More complex, however, were the ethical questions. In the 11th century, the French scholar Rashi warned Jews against the force-feeding practice, “for having made these beasts (geese) suffer while fattening them.” This went against Jewish law prohibiting tza’ar ba’alei chayim, suffering to animals, although some rabbis claimed that since none of the geese’s limbs were harmed and the geese did not feel discomfort in their throats, foie gras was not treyf, or forbidden. Other rabbinic scholars suggested that it is only permissible to inflict pain on an animal when the benefit of doing so is significant; since there are no real nutritional benefits to foie gras, the process of force-feeding was questionable.”

One can only wonder who these “some rabbis” and “other rabbinic scholars” were who argued with this non-existent Rashi!

The book that is the source for many of these other articles is the beautiful coffee-table book Foie Gras: A Passion (1999) by Michael Ginor and Mitchell Davis. Ginor, an American who spent two years in the IDF and while in Israel discovered foie gras, co-founded, co-owns, and is President of NY based Hudson Valley Foie Gras and New York State Foie Gras, the most comprehensive foie gras producer in the world. His book is an absolutely comprehensive book on everything one could possibly want to know about foie gras. And there on p. 11 he quotes the non-existent Rashi and on p. 12 the English version of the strangely translated ethical will. I have no idea where he found those two quotes that have today become so common in the vegetarian literature.

The fact that all one has to do is look in the Hebrew originals to see that these quotes are fake news, explains why they are found in English sources and I have not yet found them in any of the Hebrew works on animal rights.

Mayer I. Gruber — How Did Rashi Make a Living?

How Did Rashi Make a Living?[1]

Mayer I. Gruber

Professor in the Department of Bible Archaeology and the Ancient Near East

Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beersheva, Israel

It has long been taken for granted that Rashi engaged in viticulture, which is to say, the cultivation of vineyards and the preparation and sale of wine made from the grapes he cultivated.[2] However, in 1978 the question of how Rashi made a living was reopened by Haym Soloveitchik.[3] Indeed, Soloveitchik asserted: “Indeed the presumption is against anyone being a winegrower in Troyes. Its chalky soil is inhospitable to viticulture. . . .”[4] Soloveitchik went further and declared, “Rashi may nevertheless have been a vintner; but by the same measure he may have been an egg salesman.”[5]

Since, on the face of it, Soloveitchik had declared that being a vintner, i.e., a cultivator of vineyards, and being an egg salesman were equally plausible careers for Rashi, notwithstanding Soloveitchik’s unequivocal declaration that the soil of Troyes was “inhospitable to viticulture,” it seemed worthwhile to me to explore three questions. These were 1) Rashi’s association with eggs; 2) the plausibility and implausibility of viticulture in Rashi’s vicinity; and 3) alternative careers for Rashi in view of the alleged inhospitability of Rashi’s native city of Troyes to viticulture.

Eggs

A perusal of the published responsa of Rashi reveals that, in fact, eggs were a favorite in Rashi’s diet. Rashi’s famous disciple Shemayah[6] tells us that on more than one occasion he had seen that Rashi was served grilled meat[7] or fried eggs with honey.[8] The latter delicacy was called in Old French ab-bstr.[9] Moreover, Shemayah informs us that Rashi was wont to pronounced the berakhah shehakkol ‘by whose will all things come into being’ and consume these foods prior to beginning the meal with washing of the hands and the berakhah over bread.[10] Shemayah explains that Rashi informed him that the reason he did not wash his hands and recite ha-motzi over bread before eating eggs fried with honey is as follows: “This is much more enjoyable to me than bread, and I like bestowing my benedictions to laud my Creator with respect to [the food that I love].”[11]

What this halakhic text tells us about Rashi and eggs is that fried eggs mixed with honey were among his favorite foods, which he enjoyed so much that he ate them as an appetizer before the meal itself which began with the washing of the hands and ha-motzi. Fried eggs mixed with honey[12] were among the food items for which Rashi had no patience to wait. Notwithstanding Rashi’s enjoyment of fried eggs, neither this text nor any other text so far published intimates that Rashi was engaged in either the retail or wholesale trade in eggs. On the contrary, the following responsum demonstrates that Rashi received eggs and other edible products for his personal consumption from others:

It happened to me, Solomon ha-Yitzhaqi. A Gentile sent me cakes and eggs on the eighth day of Passover. The Gentile entered the courtyard and called to my wife, and my wife sent a messenger to the synagogue. Thereupon, I gave instructions to keep the eggs in a corner until the evening. In the evening [after the end of Passover] I permitted their use allowing the amount of time that it would have taken [to bring them to my house had they set out for my house after the this time [when the holiday had already ended].[13]

Cows and Sheep

Several of Rashi’s responsa suggest that he and other Jewish residents of Troyes from time to time owned pregnant cows and ewes.[14] None of these texts accounts suggest that either Rashi or the other Jews mentioned in these responsa owned herds of cattle or flocks of sheep. The one cow or sheep was probably the family’s source of dairy products. In each of the recorded instances Rashi advised divesting oneself of ownership in favor of a Gentile so as to avoid being subject to the mitzvah of redeeming the firstborn male of a cow or ewe, a mitzvah which cannot be accomplished in the absence of the Temple (see Deut. 12:6, 17: 14:23). In the one instance where one of Rashi’s Jewish neighbors made the mistake of acquiring and slaughtering for meat a firstborn lamb born of a ewe of which the Jew was legal owner, Rashi decided that the only recourse was to bury the slaughtered lamb half on Rashi’s property and half on the other Jew’s property so that the act of burying all that meat would be less conspicuous and the Jews would not be suspected by their neighbors of engaging in some kind of witchcraft.[15]

According to Rashi’s own testimony he acquired and ate eggs. To date, however, there is no evidence that he was an egg salesman. Likewise, on more than one occasion Rashi owned a cow or a sheep. However, owning an occasional cow or sheep did not make Rashi into a rancher or a cowboy. Likewise, numerous testimonies both in his response as well as in his commentary to Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 18a and in his biblical commentary on Jer. 25:30 to Rashi’s familiarity with the details of wine production do not prove that Rashi actually cultivated vineyards either for private use or for commercial purposes.[16] As argued by Soloveitchik, all the texts bearing upon Rashi’s familiarity with wine production serve only to demonstrate that, in fact, the Jews of Troyes in Rashi’s era had to produce their own wine because halakhah prohibited Jews from consuming wine produced by Gentiles.[17]

Wine barrel with Rashi’s seal

The reference in a responsum by Rashi to a wine barrel that bore Rashi’s seal[18] does not necessarily make Rashi a commercial producer of either grapes or wine any more than does his ownership of a pregnant cow make him a cowboy. On the other hand, another responsum by Rashi refers to a Jewish borrower who pledged a vineyard as collateral for a loan.[19] The latter text is one of a number of texts[20] which suggest that Soloveitchik may have gone too far in arguing that one of the reasons that Rashi could not have been a vintner is that the region in which he lived could not support viticulture.[21]

So how then did Rashi make a living?

In the conventional presentation of Rashi’s biography[22] Rashi is assumed to have been a vintner by profession and the head of an academy of Jewish learning as an avocation. However, when Baron so described Rashi, the corpus of Rashi’s Responsa had not yet been published by Elfenbein.[23] The facts, which can be culled from examination of the responsa, hardly portray Rashi as an amateur rabbi/scholar or his yeshivah as a hobby.

In fact, the conventional presentation of Rashi’s biography also fosters the widely accepted notion that religious instruction, the study of sacred texts whether from a historical, halakhic, or a theological perspective, whether in the university, the yeshivah, the modern rabbinical seminary, the Jewish day school, or seminaries for teachers, or wherever, is or should be essentially a leisure activity. Careful reading of Rashi’s responsa for what they tell us about daily life among Rashi and his disciples reveals that Rashi himself succeeded by his very professionalism in his very careful and by no means subtle design for making his yeshivah an intellectual and spiritual center for all of world Jewry and indeed, for all persons both friendly and hostile, who wished to understand the Torah.

Rashi as Gaon

It is no accident therefore that Rashi’s yeshivah was called Yeshivat Geon Yaakov “the Yeshivah of the Glory of Jacob,” the official name of the academy that still functioned in Baghdad in Rashi’s time, and which claimed to have been founded by Rav in 219 CE in Sura. Likewise, Rashi’s title was Rosh Yeshivat Geon Yaakov, “Head of the Yeshivah of the Glory of Jacob.”[24] Also, like the heads of the Babylonian Jewish academies, Rashi referred to himself by the title of the spiritual leaders of Babylonian Jewry, Gaon.[25]

Apparently, it was from the funding he received from communal assets paid on behalf of his students by the communities from which they came,[26] Rashi was able to dress himself, his wife, and his daughters in the style that befits a spiritual, intellectual, and communal leader of Jewry far beyond the boundaries of Troyes.

Implications for Today

Indeed, it may change the way we relate to our schools of Jewish learning and our programs of Jewish learning, both religious and secular, if we can liberate ourselves from the view that for Rashi, Rabban shel Yisrael,[27] our mentor, par excellence, studying Torah, teaching Torah, and adding to the corpus of Torah literature, were all hobbies, rather than aspects of a profession. Once it is grasped that Rashi’s Torah activities constituted a profession, we may begin to treat not only the people who raise money for and administer Torah institutions and programs for the academic study of Judaism as persons who deserve to make a living from what they do but also those who study and teach to extend the frontiers of our knowledge and to broaden the base of persons, who are privy to this rich heritage. Likewise, seriously treating day school teaching as a profession might have a positive effect on both the working conditions and pay of day school teachers and the way in which the children of the fortunate treat their teachers.

Notes:

[1] This article is based upon material found in the Introduction to Mayer I. Gruber, Rashi’s Commentary on Psalms (Brill Reference Library of Judaism, vol. 18; Leiden & Boston, Brill, 2004), and is published at the Seforim blog with permission of Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden. Special thanks are due to Editor Michiel Klein Swormink of Koninklije Brill in Boston.

[2] Maurice Liber, Rashi, trans. Adele Szold (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1906), 56; Irving Agus, The Heroic Age of Franco-German Jewry (New York: Yeshiva University Press, 1969), 173; Israel S. Elfenbein, “Rashi in His Responsa,” in Rashi, His Teachings and Personality, ed. Simon Federbusch (New York: Cultural Divison of the World Jewish Congress, 1958), 67; Salo W. Baron, “Rashi and the Community of Troyes,” in Rashi Anniversary Volume, ed. H. L. Ginsberg (New York: American Academy for Jewish Research, 1941), 60.

[3] Haym Soloveitchik, “Can Halakhic Texts Talk History?” AJS Review 3 (1978): 153-196.

[4] Ibid., p. 172, n. 54.

[5] Ibid.

[6] For the important contributions of Shemayah, who was Rashi’s personal secretary, who edited Rashi’s personal correspondence, wrote commentaries on the piyyutim of Eliezer ha-Kalir, helped Rashi edit the final versions of Rashi’s commentaries on Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Psalms, and composed glosses on Rashi’s commentary, which are preserved in Leipzig Stadtbiliothek, Ms. Wagenseil, B.H. fol. I, see the extensive discussion in Avraham Grossman, The Early Sages of France (2d ed.; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1997), 174, 347-426 (in Hebrew).

[7] For the different possible textual readings and their respective meanings see Israel Elfenbein, Responsa Rashi (New York: Shulsinger, 1943),114 #86, nn. 4-5.

[8] Elfenbein, Responsa Rashi, 310-11 #270.

[9] Ibid., 310, n. 1.

[10] Ibid., 215.

[11] Ibid.

[12] The text of the responsum refers, in fact, to eggs fried in honey. In light of the commentary of Nissim Gerondi (commonly known in the yeshivah world as “the RaN, at the top of Babylonian Talmud, Nedarim 52b, it appears that “fried in honey” is a literary convention in Rabbinic Hebrew for “mixed in honey and fried [in oil].” For this information I am indebted to Professor Alan Witztum, Professor of Botany at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beersheva, Israel.

[13] Elfenbein, Responsa Rashi, 142 #114. Here Rashi takes for granted the principle attributed to Rav Papa in Babylonian Talmud, Betza 24a: If a Gentile brought a Jew a present at night just after the end of a Jewish festival, the Jew may benefit from the gift only after the elapse of enough time for the Gentile to have prepared the gift after the end of the festival.

[14] Elfenbein, Responsa Rashi, 202-03, #182-184; contrast Emily Taitz, The Jews of Medieval France (Contributions to the Study of World History, no. 45; Westport, Ct.: Greenwood Press, 1994), 85.

[15] Elfenbein, Responsa Rashi, 202 #182.

[16] Contrast Moche Catane, La Vie en France aus lle siecle e’apres les ecrits de Rachi (Jerusalem: Editions Gallia, 1994), 130-31; cf. Taitz, 72-77.

[17] Soloveitchik, 172-73. Of course, the original reason for the prohibition was the presumption that virtually all Gentiles worshipped a multiplicity of gods and that wine from virtually any barrel of wine they sold or gave to Jew had been poured out as a libation in the worship of “other gods.” Later the Rabbinic Sages (Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 17b) extended this prohibition to any wine that had been touched by any Gentile so as to discourage socializing that might lead to intermarriage and thereby to the total assimilation of the Jewish people.

[18] Oxford Bodleian Ms. Oppenheim 276, p. 35a, cited by Grossman, The Early Sages of France, 132; 135, n. 45.

[19] Elfenbein, Responsa Rashi, 66, #61; see also the discussion in Taitz, 84.

[20] Note, for example, the “ordinance of Rashi” in Louis Finkelstein, Jewish Self Government in the Middle Ages (2d printing; New York: Feldheim, 1964), 147, which specifically exempts from taxation by the self-governing Jewish community of greater Troyes household items, houses, vineyards, and fields; see the discussion in Robert Chazan, Medieval Jewry in Northern France: A Political and Social History (Baltimore & London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973), 16. See also the account of the case that came before R. Joseph b. Samuel Tob-Elem (Bonfils) at the end of the 10th and the beginning of the 11th century CE concerning the attempt of the community of Troyes to ignore, with respect to a certain Leah, the community’s traditional exemption of vineyards from taxation. Fortunately for this Leah, the learned R. Joseph agreed with her that the traditional exemption should be upheld. See Chazan, 15-16. Irving Agus, Urban Civilization in Pre-Crusade (2 vols.; New York Yeshiva University Press, 1965), 438-446 anticipates Soloveitchik’s attempt to play down the importance of vineyards in the economic life of the Jews of Troyes in the time of Rashi, and he goes so far as to argue from silence that Leah was at that time the only owner of a substantial vineyard. In any case, both the litigation in question and the reference to vineyards along with household goods and houses in the so-called “ordinance of Rashi” should put to rest the contention that the soil of greater Troyes was inhospitable to viticulture. See also the numerous references to wine production in Rashi’s commentaries on the Babylonian Talmud where Rashi frequently contrasts the realia referred to in the Talmud with the corresponding realia in 11th-12th century CE Troyes; these sources are listed and analyzed in Catane, La Vie en France aus lle siecle d’apres les ecrits de Rachi, 130-133; see also the references in Rashi’s responses to Jews’ hiring Christians to carry wine casks; see Elfenbein, Responsa Rashi, #160; #260; see Taitz, 84.

[21] Soloveitchik, 172, n. 54.

[22] In addition to Baron and the other authorities cited in n. 2 above, see passim in Taitz; and see also Herman Hailperin, Rashi and the Christian Scholars (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1963), 268, nn. 10-11; Grossman, The Early Sages of France, 121, n. 1; 130, n. 31; and see also Mordechai Breuer, “Toward the Investigation of the Typology of Western yeshivot in the Middle Ages,” in Studies in the History of Jewish Society in the Middle Ages and in the Modern Period: Presented to Professor Jacob Katz on his Seventy-Fifth Birthday, ed. E. Etkes and Y. Salmon (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1980), 49, n. 26 (in Hebrew).

[23] See above; additional responsa are discussed in Grossman, The Early Sages of France, 127-159; see also Soloveitchik, 153-196.

[24] Elfenbein, Responsa Rashi, 93 #73.

[25] Ibid., 245-246 # 115.

[26] Gruber, Rashi’s Commentary on Psalms, 20-22; see Norman Golb, The Jews in Medieval Normandy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 154-196.

[27] For the sources of this explanation of the acronym Rashi see Gruber, Rashi’s Commentary on Psalms, 1, n. 1.

Mayer I. Gruber is Professor in the Department of Bible Archaeology and Ancient Near East at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Beersheva, Israel. He received his Ph.D. in Ancient Semitic Languages & Literatures at Columbia University in the City of New York (1977). Gruber also earned Rabbinic Ordination at the Jewish Theological Seminary of America in New York (1970). Prior to aliyah with his family in 1980, Gruber taught at Spertus College of Judaica in Chicago and was rabbi of Mikdosh El Hagro Hebrew Center in Evanston, Illinois.

Gruber’s Rashi’s Commentary on Psalms (Leiden: Brill, 2004), which includes the Hebrew text of Rashi’s Commentary, an English translation, a supercommentary on the form of notes, and a comprehensive introduction to Rashi’s life and work. Gruber’s other publications include a series of articles on the diagrams, which Rashi included in his biblical commentaries, a collection of Gruber’s articles entitled, The Motherhood of God and Other Studies (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992; now available from University Press of America in Lanham, Md.); additional studies on women in the biblical world and early Judaism; Aspects of Nonverbal Communication in the Ancient Near East (2 vols.; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1980), which deals with gesture language and its impact on the vocabulary of Biblical Hebrew and other ancient Semitic languages; the commentary on Job in the Oxford Jewish Study Bible (2003); and the revision of the entry “Job” in the 2d edition of the Encyclopaedia Judaica (2006).