ha-geonim, ed. J. Freimann [Berlin, 1909], p. xiii; and
see there pp. xxi–ii for citations from “Rashi” in that
work). “Rashi” returned to Troyes where he served as
rabbi and head of an important yeshivah, which essen-
tially replaced those of Mayence and worms (where he
may also have studied), which were destroyed in the
attack on Jews during the First Crusade (see Crusades)
in 1096.
“Rashi” had only daughters (two or three), one of
whom married Meir b. Samuel. All of their children were
scholars, the most famous being Samuel (“Rashbam”)
and Jacob (“Rabbe ̄nu Ta m”). Another daughter, Miriam,
married Judah b. Natan, whose commentary on the last
pages of the talmudic tractate Makkot is in the printed
editions (the legend that one of Rashi’s daughters wrote
the commentary on Nedarim may perhaps be a confu-
sion with Judah’s commentary on that tractate). The
commentary on chapter 10 of Sanhedrin ascribed
to Rashi is also apparently by Judah (see J. N. Epstein’s
article on Judah’s commentaries in Tarbiz 4 [1932],
and Saul Lieberman, Sheqi‘in [Shki‘in as cataloged
by libraries; 1939, rpt. 1970], pp. 92–96; and Ch.
Mer h.aviah, “Rashi’s commentary to ‘H.eleq’” [Heb.],
Tarbiz 33 [1964]: 259–86).
While “Rashi” is best known to the non-Jewish world
for his biblical commentary, in fact his commentary on
the Talmud is far more important and has earned him his
place as one of the foremost scholars in Jewish history.
In addition to these works, he also wrote many responsa,
a siddur—not actually a prayer book but rather a running
compendium of laws and customs relating to blessings,
prayers, holidays, etc. in the manner of similar works
by the Geonim Sa‘adyah and Amram—and other legal
rulings and customs, recorded actually by his students
in Se ̄ fer ha-orah and Pa rd e ̄s. (It has been argued that
Se ̄ fer ha-orah was probably written in Provence, but this
is unlikely since several statements indicate a French
origin; it contains statements also found in the Siddur,
but sometimes corrupted; Abraham Epstein earlier
observed that it is fi rst cited by fourteenth-century Span-
ish authorities, which is not true, and may even have
been written in Spain, but this is even more unlikely. On
Pa rd e ̄s, see A. Ehrenreich’s introduction to his edition,
and V. Aptowitzer, “Zu “Raschi”s Pardes,” Zeitschrift
für hebraischen Bibliografi e 20 [1917]: 14–16. Much
of this work, and the Se ̄ fer ha-orah, was taken from
the Ma‘aseh geoniym, written shortly after the time of
“Rashi.” Another important source was the collection
Ma‘aseh ha-Makhiyriy, by the sons of Makhiyr,
brothet of Gershom b. Judah, which recorded the
customs of the sages of their time and was probably
edited by Menah.em b. Makhiyr (see Leopold Zunz,
Literaturgeschichte der synagogalen Poesie [Berlin,
1865], pp. 158, 161; Raphael Straus, Regensburg and
Augsburg [1939], p. 51). On the other hand, it is not
possible that the editor Menah.em whose name appears
in Pa rd e ̄s—see f. 13b and No. 166, also possibly No.
150—was that Menah.em b. Makhiyr, since he mentions
“Rashi” specifi cally.
There is no doubt that “Rashi”’s talmudic com-
mentary, in addition to making sometimes obscure
statements clear (or clearer, at least), helped establish a
more accurate text. The text had become corrupted and
interpolated over the centuries, and “Rashi” utilized
Rabbe ̄nu Gershom’s autograph corrected copy, and
also other manuscripts. Because of the great amount of
contact between Italy and France, “Rashi” also knew of
Italian Jewish scholarship, and cites Italian commen-
taries on the Talmud (still unpublished) as peirush, or
qunt.res, Romiy. Contrary to what has sometimes been
claimed, he did not know of Natan of Rome’s ‘Arukh,
although his students later did. Nevertheless, he was in
frequent contact with Natan and he addressed inquiries
to him, according to Isaac b. Moses of Vienna (thirteenth
century, author of Or zarua’) and others. Although
“Rashi” did not, of course, know Arabic and relied on
the often erroneous views of Menah.em b. Saruq and,
less frequently, Dunash Ibn Labrat., especially in his
biblical commentaries, his own grammatical explana-
tions are sometimes valuable (see, e.g., his lengthy
discussion of the possible meanings of the conjunction
kiy, in Teshuvot, ed. Elfenbein, No. 251).
The authentic commentary of “Rashi” is only on the
following tractates: Berakhot, Shabbat, ‘Eruvin, Pesah.
im (chs. 1–9), Yoma, Sukkah, Beis.ah, Rosh ha-Shannah,
Megillah, H.agigah, Yevamot, Ketuvot, Sot.ah, Git.t.in,
Qidduskin, B.Q., B.M., B.B. (to fol. 29a), Sanhedrin
(chs. 1–9), Makkot (to fol. 19a), Shevu‘ot, ‘A.Z., Zevah.
im, Menah.ot, H.ullin, Bekhorot, ‘Arakin, Temurah, and
Niddah. The commentary on Ta’anit is doubtful, while
that on Zevah.im is in fact only partly by him (variant
readings are also recorded in the Diqduqei sofrim). On
Menah.ot one should see the commentary attributed
to Ibn Adret, and also the new text of “Rashi”’s com-
mentary in the Vilna edition. “Rashi” is said to have
written a commentary also on Nedarim, but it is lost
(see above on the legend that his daughter wrote that
commentary). In the printed text of B.B. 29a is written
“here Rashi died,” but in other manuscripts it is “to here
Rashi commented”: not that he died but that he did not
complete the commentary beyond that point. However,
it does appear that he died while writing the commentary
on Makkot (f. 19b). The printed commentary on Mo‘ed
qat.an is not by “Rashi” but by Gershom b. Judah; how-
ever, the actual commentary of Rashi on that tractate
has been published (ed. E. Kupfer, Jerusalem, 1961).
A commentary on Mashkin attributed to “Rashi” was
published in 1939 (rpt. 1969).
“Rashi”’s talmudic commentaries, unlike those on the
Bible, had an almost immediate and lasting impact on“RASHI” (SOLOMON B. ISAAC)