Rashbam

Found 8 Search results

  1. Why are There Stories in the Torah?

    Dr. Baruch Alster

    תאריך פרסום: תשע"ה | |

    Rashi's first comment on the Torah famously asks why the Torah begins with creation and not with the mitzvot. In essence, he is dealing with the question of the Torah's genre - is it a history book or a legal text? This question is dealt with by other parshanim as well. In this lesson, we will compare three approaches - those of Rashi, Rashbam, and Ramban. We will see that each of the later parshanim saw the question as a dichotomy - the Torah is either law or narrative, while Rashi's view is more complex.

  2. Rav Yosef Kara

    Dr. Avigail Rock

    Mahari Kara, an apparent student of Rashi, maintained both a loyalty to and at the same time a strong independence of Rashi.

    Mahari Kara’s exegetical principals include:

    • Loyalty to the peshat, much more so than Rashi, feeling no obligation to cite any derash at all. In this, his commentary may be considered trailblazing. 
    • A great sensitivity to literary technique and style including lashon nofel al lashon, alliteration, paronomasia, rhythm and meter, literary structure, and connective associations.
    • He delineates exegetical principles that may be applied elsewhere in Tanakh including pre-emption and parallelism.  

     

    Mahari Kara makes two basic assumptions about peshat and derash:

    • Even the Sages, who wrote the midrashim, believed that peshat is the essence.  The aim of derash is only for ethical purposes, and not to provide an explanation missing in Tanakh.
    • Tanakh does not require external facts in order to explain it; it cannot be that the verse speaks ambiguously and relies on Midrashic material in order to be understood.

  3. Rashbam

    Part 1

    Dr. Avigail Rock

    Rashbam displays a great deal of respect towards his grandfather, Rashi, having learnt a great deal from him, but this does not prevent him from arguing on his views. The Rashbam’s commentaries are original and creative; his avoidance of Midrashic material allows him to look at the verse in an innovative, direct way.

    The nature of Rashbam’s commentary makes the following assumptions:

    • The commentaries prior to him, including his grandfather Rashi, might have thought that they were explaining the verses in accordance with the peshat, their commentaries do not express the simple meaning of the verse.
    • The “enlightened” are those who study Tanakh without relying on any Midrashic material.
    • The Rashbam’s pursuit of pure peshat does not take away from his regard for the Sages’ traditions, which are reliable and valid. The data derived from the derash is more important than the data derived from peshat.
    • Nonetheless, the peshat maintains an independent significance.
    • Both the Peshat and the Derash are true readings of the Torah.

    The principles of Peshat according to Rashbam include:

    • Taking into account common sense, logic and nature.
    • A verse must be understood as part of the general context in which it is placed and as being integrated in the sequence of verses in which it is found.
    • The peshat of Tanakh should be understood on its own, without consulting any external information; all data must be either explicit in the text or implicit in human logic or accepted practice.

    Rashbam’s Rules for Understanding the Biblical Lexicon include:

    • Synonyms are used in juxtaposition to each other without alluding to a different meaning to each word.
    • When the Torah introduces a passage with “And it was at that time,” it is an expression which comes to tell us that this event is closely tied to the previous event.

  4. Rashbam

    Part 2

    Dr. Avigail Rock

    Foreshadowing

    One of the most important ideas that the Rashbam develops is the principle of foreshadowing. According to this principle, when the Torah notes details that appear to be disconnected, extraneous, or anachronistic, it actually provides them in order to explain an event that comes afterwards.

    It is possible to apply the principle of foreshadowing, not only to verses or fragments, but even to larger segments. For example, in the Rashbam’s introduction to Bereishit, he declares that the story of Creation interests us solely because it helps us understand the Ten Commandments.

    From explanations similar to this, it arises that the essence of the Torah is the mitzvot, while the narratives are secondary; the stories appear in order to explain the mitzvot.

    Peshat and Halakha

    In his explanations of the halakhic portion of the Torah, the Rashbam employs the same method which he applies to the narrative portion of the Torah: the explanation of the verses without any reliance on Midrashic literature. This approach is difficult to apply to mitzvot because the binding halakha is not the simple meaning of the verse, but the interpretation of the verses as the Sages explain it. The Rashbam believes that one should adopt the views of the Sages for everything that relates to practical Halakha; however, the interpretation of the peshat and the halakhic midrashim can live under the same roof. What worth does peshat have when it does not fit with Halakha? One possibility is that the peshat reflects the ideal, while the derash deals with the real.

  5. R. Yosef Bekhor Shor

    Dr. Avigail Rock

    R. Yosef of Orléans, (northern France) was a 12th-century exegete who has become known through the generation as Ri Bekhor Shor. He was a Tosafist, a student of Rabbeinu Tam, and he was influenced mainly by Rashi’s commentary and the commentaries of Mahari Kara and the Rashbam. Like his predecessors Mahari Kara and Rashbam, he was a member of the peshat school.  It appears that Ri Bekhor Shor forges a path that is a middle way between Rashi and the pursuers of the peshat. These are his major exegetical principles:

    • Ri Bekhor Shor aims to explain the verses without non-biblical information; however, when the derash is appropriate for explaining the peshat and for the general context of verses, or when one may explain it as being in keeping with biblical reality, he will not hesitate to bring a midrash.
    • The Torah does not provide superfluous information. All information provided is in fact essential.
    • Verses should be explained within their specific context, a reverse method to the foreshadowing principle of Rashbam.
    • Verses should be explained based on understanding the state of mind of the human actors.
    • Verses should be explained according to the reality of the biblical era.
    • God directs the world in a natural way as much as possible, and the use made of miracles is the absolute minimum.
    • An expansive and consistent approach to the question of the reasons of mitzvot.
    • In the Peshat vs. Halakha discussion, Ri Bekhor Shor is closer to Rashi’s approach with exception in which he explains the verses according to a Peshat that differs from Halakha.
    • A tendency to counteract Christian interpretations of the Torah.

  6. Summary of Exegesis of Northern France and Introduction to Spanish Exegesis

    Dr. Avigail Rock

    The peshat school of Northern France was founded by Rashi, who wrote his commentary according to the way of peshat alongside the Sages’ interpretations. Those who followed in his footsteps — R. Yosef (Mahari) Kara, the Rashbam, and R. Yosef Bekhor Shor of Orléans took this idea of peshat to an extreme, shunning use of the Sages’ words for purposes of biblical interpretation.

    The distinctions between the biblical exegesis of northern France and the biblical exegesis of Spain is that the Jewish exegetes of northern France based their approaches, for the most part, on sources and ideas from Jewish tradition, which we may describe as internal concepts. These are not based at all on the ideas and outlooks of the Christian culture amidst which the exegetes resided. In contrast, the Jewish exegetes of Muslim Spain drew their tools from internal sources as well as external sources. The many domains to which the scholars of Spain had been exposed left their mark on the character of the Spanish commentaries.

  7. R. Avraham ibn Ezra

    Part 3

    Dr. Avigail Rock

    Ibn Ezra believes that it is inconceivable for the Sages’ halakhic tradition to contradict the peshat of the verses. On this point, he argues with the Rashbam, who goes as far as to explain the halakhic verses against the tradition of the Sages. As we have explained in the previous lessons, Ibn Ezra supports the view of philological pashtanut and exerts great effort to explain the verses in accordance with the rules of grammar and topical logic. However, when there is a contradiction between the peshat and the Sages’ tradition in Halakha, ibn Ezra pushes the simple meaning of the words so that it will fit with the Sages’ view, while striving to have it dovetail with the rules of grammar and language.

    Despite these words of Ibn Ezra expressing the unquestionable authority of the Sages in Halakha, many times ibn Ezra veers in his interpretation from the interpretation of the halakhic ruling.

    ·       It may be that ignorance of the halakhic ruling – due to poverty and wandering - is what causes him to interpret verses differently than the Sages.

    ·       Alternatively, while the ibn Ezra sees himself as bound by the Sages’ legal authority, the Sages themselves do not believe that this is the verse’s intent, but they tie the law to the verse.

    While ibn Ezra had a profoundly negative view of the Karaites, it is important to note that he does not hesitate to cite their interpretations if he believes they are correct. According to his view, the truth of the Oral Torah may be established not only by finding its laws in the verses of Written Torah, but by confronting the reality of the absence of many laws in the Written Torah. These exigent rules are only found in the Oral Torah, and without their existence there is no significance at all to the laws of the Written Torah.

    Ibn Ezra was aware of Rashi’s status in France. Therefore, in his commentary to the Torah, ibn Ezra keeps his silence despite the fact that he disagreed with him.

    Ibn Ezra conceals issue in his commentary; he embraces the phenomenon of "sod" with regard to deep concepts, issues regarding the authorship of Torah and sins of great Biblical figures.

  8. Rashbam and Ibn Ezra

    Rabbi Dr. Martin Lockshin

    תאריך פרסום: 5777 | | Hour

    Beginning with biographical sketches, we compare and contrast, Ibn Ezra and Rashbam, two Torah commentators who claim to look for the plain meaning of the text.  Both are interested peshat at a time when others aren’t, but they are two very different people from different contexts and milieus. Their methods and comments can often be remarkably similar, but the differences are telling. We delve into the question of what peshat is. Do they both see "peshat" as the highest value in their Torah commentary, or is something else going on? We will look at some fascinating examples that highlight their respective methodologies.