Spanish Jewish scholarship as well as that of France and
Germany. While talmudic scholarship in Spain soon far
outstripped that of the northern European countries, such
outstanding scholars as nah.manides, Ibn Adret, Asher
b. Yeh.iel and others frequently cited his interpretations,
even if sometimes disagreeing.
Bible Commentaries
He clearly intended to write a commentary on all of
the books of the Bible, but did not complete it (Ber-
liner stated that the printed commentary ends with Job
40.27; he later published the completion of Job from
manuscript, see Bibliography). The commentary on
Chronicles (Divrey ha-yomiyrn) is not by him but by a
German (?) scholar who lived for a time in Narbonne in
the twelfth century (Gross, Gallia judaica, p. 416, No.
16). It was particularly the commentary on the Torah
which earned his fame among ordinary Jews throughout
the ages. It became indispensable, especially for the vast
majority who did not have a suffi cient knowledge of
Hebrew to understand all of the text even of the Torah,
much less the more complex biblical books. Eventually
the study of the weekly parashah (portion read in the
synagogue service) included the requirement of the
study also of “Rashi”’s commentary. Unfortunately,
his other commentaries were, and are, neglected, just
as the study of the other biblical books was neglected.
There are critical editions of several of the commentaries
(see bibliography), but only that on the Torah has been
translated into English (reliable translation).
“Rashi” repeatedly emphasized his intention to give
the “plain” meaning (peshut.o) of the text, and yet he did
not always adhere to that. Already Ibn ‘Ezra criticized
him for this, noting that there was much allegory or
derash in his peshat. (books have been written discuss-
ing these topics, although they have overlooked Ibn
‘Ezra’s criticism).
“Rashi”’s commentaries show evidence of good rela-
tions with Christians and a generally favorable attitude
toward them. So also in his own legal rulings, which
detail, for example, common ownership of ovens for
baking among Jews and Christians (Se ̄ fer ha-orah II,
41); Jews employed Christian laborers (ibid., p. 53);
had their horses shoed by Christian blacksmiths and
their clothes washed and repaired by Christians (p. 54).
Jews borrowed food for their animals from Christian
neighbors (p. 56). However, at times there are also
polemical statements, although some of these, such
as references to “heretics,” do not necessarily refer to
Christians (on polemics in his biblical commentaries
see Shereshevsky, p. 120 ff., and in more detail, in He-
brew, Judah Rosenthal in Se ̄ fer Rashi, pp. 45–59, rpt.
in his Meh.qarim vemeqorot (1967) I, 101–16; however,
Rosenthal was inclined to fi nd anti-Christian polemics
where none was intended). There are no statements at
all about Christians or Christianity in his commentary
on the Torah. On Gen. 1.1, he did not say, as some have
misinterpreted, that Christians accuse Jews of having
stolen the Land of Israel from the Canaanites; rather
“if the Gentiles should say.” Similarly, he wrote that
every Jew has land, since all jews have a “portion” of
the Land of Israel, and although the “Gentiles” have
conquered it they have no possessive right in it (Se ̄ fer
ha-orah, pt. II, p. 229, No. 155; Buber correctly noted
there that this is because of the law that land can never
be stolen; there is a misprint there: aizeh should read
ainah). “Gentiles” in both these statements may mean
Muslims, Christians, or any other group.Customs and Other Things
“Rashi” prohibited looking in mirrors of metal or cop-
per on the Sabbath, unless they were attached to a wall,
but a glass mirror was permitted (Pa rd e ̄s, p. 42). The
reason probably is because one might be tempted to
polish a metal mirror in order to see better, but not one
made of glass, which is generally clean. He was asked
about a Jew who rents an apartment in a building from
a Gentile and on the Sabbath he needs to go outside to
bring water from the well, and whether this is permitted
since there is no ‘e ̄ ruv (legal “enclosure” to permit car-
rying). Rashi replied that it is allowed, based on a legal
fi ction that assumes he “acquires” the use of the well
and courtyard with his rent money, so that in effect it
is his private property (ibid., p. 46). Side locks (pe ̄ ’ot)
were probably not worn in his time (later medieval
manuscript illuminations are ambiguous, some with and
some without), for in his commentary to Lev. 19.27 he
refers to “one who makes his temples exactly like the
back of his ears and forehead” (i.e., hairless). He was
fi rmly opposed to the custom of giving gifts on Purim
to Gentile slaves, or to Gentiles in general; for instance,
many poor Jews because of embarrassment sent their
children with Gentile nurses to the homes of wealthy
Jews to receive gifts, and those Jews gave gifts also to
the Gentiles. “Rashi” complained that the rabbinical
requirement of giving on Purim was intended only for
Jewish poor (Siddur, p. 168, No. 346, and cf. Pa rd e ̄s,
No. 205).
“Rashi” described the highly unusual practice of
Christians in Germany in washing clothes: two rectan-
gular pits were dug and rain water was collected. In the
fi rst pit, the water was mixed with excrement (probably
urine) of dogs and allowed to ferment to serve as a de-
tergent in which community laundry was soaked, and
then rinsed in the second pit. Clothes were fi rst perfumed
to remove the odor and then pressed between boards
(commentary on B.B. 17a; cf. also Ketuvot 77a). Some
scholars have claimed to have found references to the“RASHI” (SOLOMON B. ISAAC)