The discussion of whether or not to teach Rashi’s commentary on Chumash – with or without Nekudot – and then the further discussion of the puzzling Aggadot that Rashi cites are frankly disconcerting. Rashi is the penultimate Jewish educator. (I wrote “is” because he still plays this role in our lives.) A number of years ago, my son Naftali, a successful educator in his own right, and I discussed at length the nature of Rashi’s Chumash commentary. In the end, we both decided that Rashi is not a Peshat commentator, nor a Derash commentator, even though he uses both methods freely. He is not a grammarian, despite his grammatical lessons. In the end, Rashi is a teacher of Torah in the broadest sense possible. He connects us to the Torah text with the answers to questions that he expects us to have already asked. He does teach us both the Peshat and the Derash of the Pesukim. He teaches us ethics and theology as well. He engrains in us an abiding respect for the Torah heroes, beginning with the Avot and Imahot. He does all this and more using short, quick strokes of his pen. It is this all-encompassing approach, with all of its complexity that made him the favorite Torah commentary of young and old throughout the last 1,000 years. So, why would anyone even consider not teaching Rashi to growing, young Jewish minds?
Rashi’s use of Aggadah can be puzzling sometimes. Is he teaching us “history”? Is that what really happened? We should all remember that there is a very large group of Rishonim and Acharonim who denied the historicity of Aggadot Chazal. This “club” has rather famous members, such as the Rambam, his son Rabbenu Avraham, the Maharal, Rav Moshe Chaim Luzzatto, and Rashi!
The aforementioned Torah luminaries either considered the Aggadot to be conceptual statements or mystic ones, or both. We forget sometimes that the distance of 1,500 to 2,500 years and the difference in language means that Chazal expressed ideas differently than we do. Think of Shakespeare, who wrote in English just 400 years ago. Nevertheless, we require commentary to understand the “hard” words and we are oblivious to the ribald puns that even were readily understood by the illiterate Englishmen who stood in the Globe Theater.
Rashi’s use of Aggadah is conceptual. Go check your Concordance (Mandelkorn, p. 753, columns c-d) and you will see that throughout Chumash, the word Na’arah appears without the final letter Hay. So, you tell me, when does a Na’arah “look” like a Na’ar? It is no wonder that Chazal and Rashi teach that Rivka was under the age of 12. So, why say she was only 3 years old? The genius of Rashi (and his colleagues) was to see the big picture while commenting on a small detail. It is a confirmed fact that Yitzchak was 40 years old when he married Rivka – “The Bible told me so.” We do not know Rivka’s exact age nor can it be determined accurately by using mathematical equations. By telling us that she was only 3 years old, our sages are teaching us that Yitzchak was old enough to be her grandfather. So the extreme difference in their respective ages only exacerbated other striking differences between them. He was an established holy man who meditated in the woods. She was a child shepherdess. He was introverted. She was outgoing. When in trouble, she does not go to her husband the prophet; she seeks out God by herself. When she feels that her husband is going to make an enormous mistake, she does not confront him directly, as any wife would do. Rather, she manipulates him and fools him. How can Rashi hint at this and make us aware of the basis for the unusual relationship that Yitzchak and Rivka shared? He quotes Chazal. She was only 3! Meaning that she was very young and they were worlds apart for so many reasons.
One more example is in order to drive this point home. We all remember the Aggadah that Rashi tells about the arrival of Avram and Sarai in Egypt. He hid her in a box and his attempt to smuggle her into Egypt was foiled by a border guard. Why does Rashi tell us this story? He introduces the Aggadah with a question. Rashi never asks a question if there is a real question in the text. He only asks a question when he wants to tell us the answer. So, why is this answer / Aggadah so important? Rashi is well-aware of the Ramban’s accusation that in this episode Avram sins. Rashi rejects this assertion out of hand. However, he is well-aware of the problem. So, to lessen the ethical tension in the story, Rashi explains that Avram’s request that Sarai pose as his sister was not plan A or even plan B. Only if all else fails, then she should lie about their relationship. And the Ramban is wrong. According to Rashi, Avram did everything in his power to prevent the situation from arising. He chose the path of Hishtadlut instead of relying on simple Bitachon.
Bottom line: If the teacher has a more sophisticated understanding of what Rashi is doing, then many of the conundrums in his commentary can be understood. And, then this more sophisticated – and I believe, more correct – approach can be communicated to the students. Can you teach Rashi this way to third graders? Absolutely! I have.
There is another dividend that is only received later on when Rashi is taught correctly. So many students grow-up believing the Aggadot that Rashi quotes as biblical history. I once had a college student hunt in the Chumash for the story of Avram destroying his father’s idols. After searching for over an hour, the student admitted it wasn’t there. If the approach is different beginning when they begin studying Rashi, then they will not grow-up to think that Moshe Rabbenu was 10 Amot tall and that he jumped 10 Amot, to smash Og in the shins.
Zil G’mor
David Derovan
Beit Shemesh
