During his reign, Solomon violates Deuteronomy’s law of the king (17:16–17): he acquires wealth, horses, and wives, and God declares that his kingdom will be torn away from his heirs. Yet unlike David, Solomon does not repent. Reading Ecclesiastes as written by Solomon, Rashi portrays the king as losing everything, including his kingdom, during his own lifetime, and not only repenting but also instituting protective measures for the Torah.
Sons, and then daughters, brothers, and paternal uncles all inherit, but the Bible is silent about spouses. The Talmud, in a midrashic reading of the laws of inheritance (Numbers 27:8–11) that the sages themselves admit is not what the verses say, adds that husbands are first to inherit from wives, but wives do not inherit from their husbands. Rashi and Ibn Ezra differ on whether a biblical verse can support both midrashic and peshat interpretations.
In the biblical narrative (Genesis 26, 28), Esau marries Judith, Basemath, and Mahalath. A later genealogical list of Edomite clans (Genesis 36) says that he married Adah, Aholibamah, and Basemath. To make sense of this contradiction, medieval commentaries offer creative backstories, yielding different tallies for the total number of Esau’s wives.
Origen (3rd century C.E.) read the Song of Songs as an allegory expressing the love between Christ and his “bride,” and many Christian interpreters followed suit. Rashi (11th century C.E.), utilizing his two-pronged method of midrash aligned with peshat, developed a consistent Jewish allegory for the Song: Israel is an exiled wife, who pines for the time of her youthful love with God. Could Rashi have been contending with the Christian interpretation?
Justin Martyr, an early Church Father (c. 100–165 C.E.), interprets the strange appearance of the LORD to Abraham at Mamre as an early instantiation of God the Son, i.e., Jesus. While Rashbam obviously rejected this belief, he learned from this Christian interpretation and suggests that here, the name YHWH refers to an angel, which explains why YHWH speaks about YHWH in this story in the third person.
After Abram expresses doubt that Sarai will have children and questions how he can be sure his descendants will inherit the land, YHWH establishes the Covenant of the Pieces, lasting 400 years, extending through Israel’s time in Egypt up to their entry into the land. Does this covenant hold lasting significance for later generations, or is it replaced by God’s “everlasting” Covenant of Circumcision?
In medieval Latin Christendom, the Psalms were highly beloved, with commentators interpreting them as prophecies about Christ and the Church. Aware of this prevailing interpretation, Rashi often deviates from the plain meaning of the text to read the Psalms as a reflection of the Jewish people’s experience and suffering in his own time.
Saint Bruno the Carthusian’s (1030–1101) method of biblical interpretation took literary structure and grammar into consideration in applying select Christological readings. Rashi, a younger contemporary, created a similar methodology by incorporating only midrashim that conform to peshuto shel miqra, “the plain sense of Scripture.” Was this Rashi’s response to the threat of Bruno’s influential work?
Do miracles enhance faith? Rashi and Maimonides’ diametrically opposed positions on this question lead them to very different explanations for Moses’ sin. In between them is Ibn Ezra, who has a secret as to how miracles work and why Moses failed to perform his correctly. Avvat Nephesh, in the 14th century, rejects his predecessors’ explanations, and instead critiques Moses and Aaron’s passivity and lack of leadership; they waited for God to provide answers instead of taking initiative.
The medieval commentators, most famously Rashi, tried to describe the ephod and the choshen by reconciling the various biblical accounts. Azariah dei Rossi (ca. 1511–ca. 1578) argues that such efforts are futile; only eyewitness reports are helpful.
Esau/Edom is viewed negatively already in later biblical texts and throughout rabbinic literature, becoming a symbol of Israel’s oppressors. Marat Kila, an otherwise unknown woman, is quoted in a 15th century supercommentary on Rashi offering a positive reading of Esau’s actions.
History according to Rashi, science according to Maimonides. In Maimonides’ view, the Sages knew that hidden behind the allegorical language of the creation account is Aristotelian physics. This knowledge was lost until he (Maimonides) figured out the secret on his own.
The shift in biblical exegesis from homiletic readings to literary, contextual commentaries has its roots in Charlemagne’s 9th century Carolingian Revolution. It comes to the fore only in the 11th century with Rashi’s quasi-peshat commentary, soon followed by the peshat approach of R. Joseph Kara and Rashbam.
Rashi’s Torah commentary is largely adapted from classic rabbinic sources, including midrash halakhah. And yet, he often changes their meaning in his revisions. Where does Rashi get the authority to make these changes?
Why does Esau in Jewish tradition come to be known as עשו הרשע “Esau the Wicked”? The answer has to do with the history of Judea’s relationship with Esau’s eponymous descendants, the Edomites, and the connection Jews made between them, Rome, and Christianity. The negative view of Esau is expressed nowhere more forcefully than in Rashi’s commentary.
Rashi (Rabbi Solomon b. Isaac) wrote the most famous Jewish Bible commentary in history. Over 900 years later, scholars still argue about the nature of the commentary: Is it an attempt to explain peshat, the plain meaning of the biblical text, or is it an anthology of midrash?
Rashi interprets the opening verses of the creation story as describing God’s use of primordial substances to form the world. This idea appears in various forms in rabbinic literature but some of Rashi’s particular notions are only found in Plato’s Timaeus. Could this be one of Rashi’s sources?
Moses promises that if Israel forsakes the covenant, God will destroy them permanently (Deut 4:25-26). Drawing on a midrash, Rashi explains that God exiled Israel early to avoid having to wipe them out; thus, God never actualized this threat. Considering Rashi’s responses to Christian ideas in other biblical texts, Rashi's comment on Deut 4:25 may well be an apologetic effort to prove that God’s covenant with the Jews remains intact.
The religiosity of civil law and the obligation to use only Jewish courts: Rashi’s fourfold homily on Exodus 21:1.
It seems unethical for God to deny Pharaoh free will and then punish him for his actions. Rashi, Nahmanides, and Maimonides all struggle with this problem, and each assumes that even Pharaoh deserves to be treated fairly.
After the shocking death of Nadav and Avihu, Moses says to Aaron that this is what God meant when he said, “through those near to me I will sanctify Myself.” Rashi, Rashbam, and Nahmanides struggle to understand the meaning of Moses’ message.
The Torah mentions the ephod as something the high priest would wear, but never describes it clearly, and neither do the Talmudic sages. Medieval scholars like Rashi and Rashbam use their creativity and analytical skill to try to tease this out from the biblical text.
Do the rabbis believe that the scribes changed the wording of some verses in the Bible? A look at how the great medieval rabbi, Rashi, reacted to one “correction” sheds light on the history of the Jewish belief in the inviolability of the Torah text.
Abraham’s servant says that his master told him to take a wife for Isaac from his family, but Abraham said no such thing. Why does the servant say this and why did medieval pashtanim ignore this blatant discrepancy?